Marxism and its philosophical foundation, dialectical
materialism, are not dogmas. Products of coordinated and generalised knowledge
of all disciplines of science and historical experience, they guide us to
resolve all problems and are themselves to be developed through constant
application in ever new spheres and domains. This address at a school of
politics is an exposition in simple language and in brief outline of the basic
tenets of dialectical materialism vis-à-vis the advances of science in the
period.

Comrades,

In this school of politics which is to continue for a few days
the main subject for discussion is Marxism. I had better point out at the outset
that, with the limited time at our disposal, it will not be possible to discuss
all the different aspects of the Marxist philosophy comprehensively. Even so, I
shall try to discuss here some aspects of Marxism as fully as possible.

Why should we study Marxism

To begin with, one thing should be generally understood by all. In spite of
so many philosophies, why should we discuss Marxism in particular and put so
much stress upon it ? Is it because Marxism is a philosophy and we wish to learn
it just as one among the philosophies, or does it have an added meaning or
significance ? You should know that we do not discuss or study Marxism with the
same object with which students in schools and colleges read and discuss the
different philosophies and ideologies. We consider Marxism so important a
philosophy that its study is a must for everyone in the present era, everyone
who wants to accelerate the course of social change. I know, there are
differences on this point. That is understandable, and nothing unnatural about
it. But I am to try to highlight here what I deem to be the truth. I would ask
that you should not accept it as truth because I am saying it. You should
consider accepting what I say only after examining it and not being guided by
blind allegiance. There is bound to be a mechanical tendency or bent of mind in
this type of allegiance. And such mechanical tendencies do not only misguide the
pursuit of truth, they are apt to cause grave damages. You should hence try to
ascertain the truth or otherwise of what I say by analysing and verifying it and
then consider accepting it, but not just because I am saying it.

Not only the exploited masses of the world but civilization itself faces a
grave crisis today. To identify the root cause of the crisis, to find out why
all these problems are arising, has become all so urgent for the exploited
masses in particular. I believe, unless the Marxist philosophy is grasped
properly and a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of it is acquired, the
exploited masses will not be able to gain a correct concept of the character of
the various problems and the crisis in the present-day world; they will not be
able to free themselves from the yoke of oppression, injustice and exploitation
of all sorts. Why this is happening or some other thing is happening --
questions of the sort are confronting us one after another in every sphere of
life -- economic, political, social and cultural. Except Marxism there is no
other science which can correctly answer all these 'whys'. Besides, Marxism is
not an idle or barren ideology that is devoid of practice. Not only does it
interpret the world, it is also a guide to action to change the world.

Marxism is a science

You may have noted that I referred to Marxism as a science, although to the
learned elite it is generally known as a philosophy, a school of thought, a
particular trend of thinking, an ideology. But, as I have understood Marxism, it
would be wrong to view it as a mere school of thought or ideology the same as
the host of other philosophies, because that would imply that Marxism is in the
same category with the others. Such an understanding would mean that we can as
though accept or reject Marxism to suit our personal likes or dislikes. But such
is not the matter, such is not possible in the case of a science. It would be
easier to follow if I give an illustration. Suppose, one says that there are
many schools of thoughts in physics and one might choose one out of these.
Surely, that cannot be acceptable to a man of reasoning. This way of thinking
has no room in science. In science it may be that different scientists are
proposing different hypotheses to explain the same phenomenon or question. But
only on the anvil of experiments and verification can we judge which one among
the hypotheses is correct or whether none is correct. This is why science is
universally valid for peoples of all the countries. Scientific theories do not
vary to conform to different countries or nations. If I am correct to say that
Marxism is a science -- what kind of science it is I am coming to that later on
-- then we must accept that as a science it is valid for peoples of all
countries. It cannot be limited within the confines of any nation or country.
Only Marxism can answer correctly all the various questions confronting all the
countries, nations and peoples. The only question that remains hereafter is
whether we should accept science or reject it.

We all agree that we want to know truth, want to pursue truth. We also know
that science is the only means that can unravel truth to man. Excepting science,
we have no other means to know truth correctly. We cannot know truth by
subjective thinking; that is never possible. So it is not only important to
understand, grasp and apply in practice dialectical materialism, which has
developed as a comprehensive science, it is a must. That is why, cultivation of
dialectical materialism cannot be left to anybody's wishes, likes or dislikes.

Now, what do we understand by 'science' ? By science we mean physics,
chemistry, life sciences, mathematics, social sciences, etc. Why do we call them
science ? Because they seek truth by experiments and verification. What sort of
truth do these branches of science seek ? They investigate and study the
particular laws which govern a particular set of properties of matter or a
particular phenomenon by classifying them into different branches. For example,
chemistry deals with chemical properties and activities of matter and the
chemical laws. Again, physics studies the physical laws governing matter. In the
same way, the science that tries to comprehend the different changes and
activities of the living world is life science. And the science that helps us to
understand and influence the course of social changes is social science.

So, we see that these branches of science try to know and make use of the
particular properties, activities and laws of matter and phenomena. One thing
must be borne in mind in this connection. Although these branches of science are
apparently or formally separate, in reality they are not. They are all related
to one another, strung upon a common thread, so to say, somewhat like a
necklace. So a question had arisen : Is there any science in the world that can
analyse, correlate and integrate all the particular laws, all the particular
truths of the whole material world ? I have to say in reply that in the annals
of mankind no such science had developed prior to dialectical materialism. After
attainment of a particular stage of scientific advancement in the course of
human civilization dialectical materialism has developed as such a comprehensive
science; this alone has led to a comprehensive, consistent concept of the world
and some general truths by coordinating the particular truths and knowledges
culled from the different branches of science. This is why dialectical
materialism is called the 'coordination of sciences' or the 'the science of all
sciences'. And this dialectical materialism is the philosophical foundation of
Marxism. It is a philosophy whose outlook is universal, which treads the whole
world.

Let me clarify this point further. Applying the process of investigation and
experimentation by means of the different branches of science by classifying the
material world into parts, we are knowing separately the different particular
activities, the particular laws and the different particular properties of
matter. But it should be understood that we cannot acquire a comprehensive
matter concept simply from a knowledge of these different particular properties
and laws, nor can we get correct solutions to the various problems concerning
human society, its ethics, morals, progress or reaction. So, which scientist or
what type of science would accomplish the task of coordinating and integrating
the particular truths arrived at from the different branches of science ? A
scientist even of Einstein's stature cannot do this, neither is it possible. But
we do need such a comprehensive science as can coordinate and integrate the
truths or knowledges from the different branches of science and can provide a
clear concept about their significance and bearing on life. Dialectical
materialism is this comprehensive science. Prior to it, no other philosophy had
succeeded in accomplishing this task fully or comprehensively. Not that no other
philosophy had attempted it. Prior to the development of dialectical
materialism, there had been many attempts to establish philosophy on the basis
of science as the coordination of science. That is a long history. At times such
attempts did advance a few steps, at times there were setbacks. But the material
conditions or prerequisites conducive to the development of such a comprehensive
science had not come about earlier and that is why no philosophy prior to
dialectical materialism had been able to develop with the character of a
comprehensive science.

So, it is clear that the difference between dialectical materialism and the
other philosophies is that no other philosophy is fully based on science. The
other philosophies developed mainly on the personal power of judgement,
self-realization and intellect of different philosophers, and tried to exercise
control over science. Except dialectical materialism, no other philosophy could
attain the stature of a comprehensive science that can fully open up the vista
of truth before man, seek truth and correctly guide life in all its aspects. How
could dialectical materialism achieve this ? This had been possible because by
the time this philosophy developed, the different branches of science had made
such advancement as could provide the basis for dialectical materialism to
accomplish this task. Historically, this could not have occurred earlier.

Mere acquaintance with Marxist theory does not make one a Marxist

I want to make a point in this context. You should know that pursuing the
dialectical methodology is the essence of Marxism. Marxism cannot be grasped by
mere acquaintance with its conclusions, because even if you know those
conclusions you would not be able to throw light on a new problem or a new
situation and tackle it unless you acquire correctly the methodology of Marxist
analysis. In that case, you would have no option but to resort to the method of
drawing historical parallels or analogy with similar events or developments. So,
you should keep in mind that Marxism cannot be cultivated through learning by
rote the analyses made by the Marxist authorities. Marxism cannot also be
grasped by merely reading books. To study the Marxist classics and to do
discussions on Marxism are no doubt important, but unless one comes into
interaction with one's own self and with the environment and conducts the
necessary and adequate struggles in life one cannot grasp Marxism. So, the
dialectical materialists would not only have to base themselves on science, they
would have to rely on experiments and verification, the science of logic and
history, on truth, that is on the criteria of practice. Therefore, it is
necessary for you to take on yourselves concrete responsibilities and work for
it. Getting into work on the one hand, and into studies and discussions on
Marxism on the other -- you have to carry on both these tasks lifelong. The more
each of you would be able to elevate your cultural standard through struggle,
the more increasingly advanced communist character you would be able to acquire,
and the more you would be able to sharpen your knowledge, the more you will
succeed in grasping the Marxist methodology.

Let us now discuss what is there in dialectical materialism, what are its
conclusions, whether it has truly developed as a science and can throw light on
the crises confronting civilization, etc. I have already said that unless we
understand the root cause of a problem, we cannot find out its solution. Another
thing to understand is what do the scientists do when they conduct experiments
in the different branches of science. By scientific means, by applying
scientific methods of investigation they throw light, dispel darkness and seek
truth. But the problems in our life are not such that we can find solutions with
the help of physics or chemistry. So, it is clear that to have the comprehensive
and correct answers to the questions, and problems that face mankind and
civilization today and our quest of life, no particular branch of science can
help us. But since any problem is related to a host of other problems, we have
to understand thoroughly how they are interrelated and interdependent. So, such
a science has become essential as can lead to the correct solution of the
problems besetting society. We have already discussed that dialectical
materialism is that science which has developed by coordinating and integrating
the fundamental conclusions of the different branches of science and, therefore,
it is this science that alone can show us the correct path. We have to
understand Marxism not as some 'eternal', unchanging concepts or dogma, but as a
science. The coordinated knowledge or comprehensive science that Marxism has
developed into has to be applied in every particular sphere, in the concrete
conditions of a particular country, and in the context of the particular
contradictions; and the concepts of Marxism are to be continually enriched
through this process. We ought to realize that Marxism is not merely a political
or economic outlook, it is a world outlook and a guide to action. So I consider
it a scientific truth -- one that is experimentally proved -- that there is no
problem in the world which is outside the purview of Marxism or which cannot be
solved with the Marxist approach. So I repeat that the task of grasping the
Marxist methodology is very important.

How to know truth

Now, a few words about how to know truth. In seeking truth should we depend
on an individual, however a genius may he be, or should we depend on experiments
and verification, observation, history and the science of logic ? I think this
is the cardinal question. From human experience we know that to depend on
experimentation and science would be the correct approach for us, as there is
lesser chance of committing mistakes in it. And even if there be a mistake
anywhere, that would be detected someday in the course of experiments and
verification. So, if there is a mistake, this very process is the correct one
for rectification. But if individual thinking or intellect is relied upon, not
only is there a greater possibility of mistakes but a conclusion so arrived at
may be challenged anytime. Because, the thought of an individual, of a genius
even, is in reality nothing but individual thinking. So, the problem in
accepting the thinking of an individual as truth is that there may be direct
conflict between it and the thinking of another individual. Naturally, the
question arises: How shall we determine truth ? In the event of conflicting
opinions, it would not be possible to come to a conclusion except through an
arbitrary forcible imposition, not to speak of determining truth. In fact, we
find it in history that various ideologies based on such individual thinking
have made place for themselves in society because of blind faith and sometimes
also through forcible imposition.

We all know, it is not unnatural at all that there would be a great
multiplicity of realization among the myriad of people in society on different
issues. That is why, although there can be only one truth on a particular issue,
there may be different understandings of that truth. Since the mental make-up
and process of thinking of every individual are not the same, interpretations of
truth are bound to differ. But the interesting thing is that the protagonists of
subjective thinking believe that their thinking and concepts in their respective
spheres are all truth and playing positive roles for the wellbeing of people and
advancement of society ! So, you have to go much deeper into the matter if you
are to develop a correct and clear concept of these. That is -- why and how the
different ideologies originated and in what particular social conditions, what
roles those ideologies played in society and why those very concepts became
inadequate and ineffective with the passage of time -- you have to unravel all
these in the light of reality. But you must not be confused in any way on the
point that there can be only one truth on a particular issue. The concept of
more than one truth, or pluralism of truth, is nothing but utopian. It can never
be that differing ideas on the same issue in the same circumstances are all
true. A lot of knowledge is not required to understand it. But the fact is, many
an intellectual of fame have advocated pluralism of truth !

Say, we want to use electric energy to light a lamp or turn a fan. The
scientific theories of electricity are the same, they do not differ owing to the
differing traditions of different countries. The lamp lights up and the fan
turns because the electrical engineers have learnt the scientific laws and
theories of electricity and put them into use. If one disregards the scientific
laws of electricity and wants to proceed by putting forward his own fanciful
theory, one cannot succeed. One may even succumb to electric shocks. This is
why, scientific matters are such as do not brook this type of argument. In
science, proven and experimented truth is the only truth. We can have access to
this proven truth only if we rely upon science. So, to know truth correctly we
have to accept the process of scientific reasoning. We should submit to reason.

Correct understanding of science

We know that science cannot remain static, it is in the process of constant
change and development. Again, the material world, too, is constantly undergoing
changes. The instruments with which we are experimenting with matter today and
trying to know matter are themselves being improved continually and so also are
the very methods of experimentation. Not only this, our conception and
understanding of what we are learning today is also continually changing and
getting enriched; it too cannot remain static. At a particular time, man is
employing whatever instruments and means of experimentation he has at his
disposal to know or in trying to know truth -- what is called experimented
truth. Now, because of the various limitations of the instruments and the
methods of experimentation due to historical reasons, the knowledge acquired at
that particular time may appear inadequate at a later time in the context of the
knowledge gathered with more advanced instruments and experiments. But the
earlier knowledge can never be called wrong for this reason. The only difference
is that we have been able to surmount the past limitations and have been able to
arrive at relatively more advanced and enriched conclusions. Our concepts are
continually getting more advanced and enriched in this process. The point to
remember is that an experimentally verified conclusion of the past can be
superseded only by another experimented conclusion of a later time and not by
the fanciful thinking of an individual. This is how the world of knowledge is
developing and knowledge advancing continually. Analysed in the light of
science, it would be found that the conclusions of Marxism are also being
continually enriched in this process.

It is to be understood that the concept of change in the material world and
in the various fields of natural sciences, just discussed, is applicable in the
sphere of society as well, because society too is undergoing changes every
moment and newer problems are arising everyday. Newer questions and problems are
cropping up in society continually centring round life, morality, ethics,
political movements, economic systems, scientific research, struggle for
existence -- everything. So the need arises for continual development and
advancement of the Marxian science too. Therefore, Marxism is to be enriched and
advanced continually in keeping with the everchanging life.

I feel it necessary to discuss one or two aspects of the nature of truth. I
have already said that truth exists whether we know it or not, and there is but
one truth regarding a particular thing or phenomenon. Now, what is the meaning
of knowing truth ? To know truth generally means to have a correct realization
of the world -- the material world, the different events, phenomena and life.
The point to be especially noted here is that truth exists means it exists
concretely. So, any truth is a particular and concrete truth. The concept of
abstract or absolute truth is utopian. Truth is concrete truth in the sense that
it exists objectively and concretely amidst interactions of different phenomena,
amidst interactions of matter. Now, be it a minute particle of matter or be it
an event, it exists means it exists in the midst of a concrete situation. So,
when the existence of matter is concrete and particular, truth too is bound to
be concrete truth, particular truth. You have to develop the particular concept
of a concrete truth through verification by scientific experimentation or by
analysing it in the light of history. The more concrete your concept of truth
would be, the more would it be creative and penetrating and the more would you
acquire the ability to probe deep into a problem. Conversely, the more
superficial your concept of truth is, the more ineffective would it be.

Another point to be remembered is that truth changes with change in the
circumstances and so the concept of truth of a particular issue also changes.
That is why the concept of absolute truth is untenable. It is not that there is
no truth, but there is no such thing as absolute truth. The concept of absolute
truth is the great lie that confuses the pursuit of truth in life. It should be
understood that just as truth is concrete truth, and there is no existence of
absolute or abstract truth, the concept of truth in this everchanging world is
that of a relative truth. This is why truth is invincible and we would grope in
the dark unless we can acquire the correct concept of truth about matter. You,
who want to change society and the world and free yourselves from capitalist
exploitation, would have to conduct a lifelong pursuit of truth. Remember, this
is why the correct pursuit of truth is very important for the exploited,
oppressed masses because truth is invincible and decisive. On the other hand,
truth at a particular moment is complete truth, adequate truth -- the concept of
inadequate or ambiguous truth is absurd.

Another point. There is nothing in the world that is unknowable. Science does
not consider such thinking correct. There is nothing in the world beyond man's
comprehension, nothing which can never be known. But it does not mean thereby
that man can know everything at a particular time. The reality is that just as
science and Marxism are providing answers to many a new problem each day, so
also some questions remain unresolved to them at any particular moment since
everything is everchanging in this changing world. So, although everything is
knowable and will be known some day, all cannot be known at a particular moment.
This is but a natural rule of the changing world. So, contradiction between the
known and the unknown will be there all the time. And because of this, there is
no limit to knowledge; pursuit of knowledge cannot stop at any point. By the
time questions hitherto unresolved would get resolved, many a new problem or new
question would crop up before man. Society, civilization, knowledge and science
are advancing in this way.

So, no truth can be static or eternal in this everchanging world, nor can
there be any such thing as eternal or absolute truth. I refer to this point anew
because some students of science may ask : What about the 'constants' in
science ? How is 'constant' to be understood ? The point to be understood here
is that in science a constant is a constant at a given time, space, domain and
phenomenon, and nothing more. If the students of science examine various
examples from the natural sciences in this light, they would themselves be able
to understand its significance.

Basic tenets of science and Marxism

Let us come back to the question of the everchanging character of the
material world and social life. We have already discussed that the ideas and
concepts of science and Marxism are continually changing, getting advanced and
enriched in course of investigating the laws of the material world and social
change respectively. This is an objective reality and cannot be denied. But we
must keep it in mind that there are some fundamentals or basic tenets in science
and Marxism which cannot be done away with. In science, these have been accepted
as the fundamentals on the basis of investigation, experimentation and
experience for a long time. That matter is both mass and energy, and even
particles of matter, however small, exist in space and time and any matter is
subject to changes all the time and such changes are law-governed -- no student
of science can deny these. If anybody seeks to deny these fundamentals on any
ground, or even in the name of development of science, we must say that such
thinking goes against science and has nothing to do with science.

Again, we know that having reached a particular stage in the course of
history, society became class divided and in course of further changes in social
system, the nature and character of class division have undergone many changes
due to historical reasons. Whatever form this class division assumes with
differences in social system in different conditions, that class antagonism
cannot disappear in a class divided society is a fundamental conclusion of
historical materialism. Now, if a Marxist leader argues on the ground that the
world is changing, that the law of class struggle does not operate in a
particular society although it is class divided and, therefore, there is no
class struggle in that society, then, whatever else, a concept as this cannot be
accepted as a correct Marxist thinking. Even though sought to be justified on
the ground of everchangeability of the world this sort of thinking is alien to
Marxism.

As the advancement of science may be obstructed, even if temporarily, owing
to evil effects of unscientific thoughts and fads or being used in the interest
of the exploiting class, so also there have been similar instances of setbacks
in the history of development of Marxism. Whether will the communist movement be
intensified and how much, or will its progress be obstructed depends upon
whether those known as Marxists in different countries are being able to grasp
the philosophy of Marxism or dialectical materialism correctly, and apply this
science correctly in life, following the correct process of thinking and correct
process of movement.

Study of Marxism should not be a matter of individual discretion

Our concepts of Marxism should be very clear therefore. One's approach
towards accepting Marxism or a revolutionary life should not be that one is a
Marxist because one likes Marxism or has a knack for it, like, say, one who
loves sports becomes a sportsman, or one becomes a physician because one likes
the medical profession, or one becomes an engineer, or takes to some other
profession for similar reasons. One is a Marxist just because one likes Marxism
or is attracted to it -- it is wrong to think like that. If such a thinking
appears consciously or unknowingly, it undermines the tremendous importance of
Marxism and revolutionary politics and equates it with any other profession. It
is not that we have a number of options before us and we have opted for Marxism
as one of the alternatives.

Let me put it in a different way. Whether some one is a scientist, writer,
sportsman, physician, engineer, or professor, one is a member of society; so one
cannot but have a relationship with society. He or she is a member of this
exploitative society. What is his own concept of sense of values as a member of
this society ? Has he thought about it ? Say, his ideas, the sense of values he
reflects in life all the time -- is he conscious of the impact and significance
of these in society and in his own life ?

It cannot be that he is not having any reaction in society through his
thinking and action. Whether he wishes it or not, his movements and conduct in
society are bound to have some reaction. Either he is letting himself to be used
as a tool or a puppet in the hands of others and is resorting to self-delusion
or else he is playing a role, however limited, against this exploitative social
order. It cannot be that he is doing neither. If he is not conscious of this and
thinks he is playing no role at all, that would be a mere wishful thinking. In
the present class divided exploitative society, one may try but one cannot
really keep oneself free from the impact of this society. One may wonder, being
a sportsman, what relation he has got with exploitation and oppression. But if
he would think a bit more deeply, he would come to understand that everyone is
connected some way or other with everything in society. The point is to
understand this relationship. Can anyone evade the question on any pretext ? Of
course, it is true that one cannot be forced to understand if one does not wish
to or be made to do anything against one's will. That question does not at all
arise. But one should be aware that one may be unknowingly strengthening the
hands of a force engaged in sustaining the present exploitative system. One may
think that since one is acting at one's free will it is nobody's business to
interfere with this. But had he applied his mind a bit, he could have detected
that he was virtually denying the role of man in history through this sort of
thinking. Because, it is common knowledge that the difference between man and
the other animals lies in the fact that whereas other animals are subjugated
under natural laws and move about as they are conditioned by the environment,
man constitutes the sole exception. Man refused to be a blind subject of nature.
He has tried to conquer nature, he has grasped the natural laws and has used
them for the wellbeing of mankind and made possible advancement of society and
civilization. Along with material production, he has achieved spiritual
production as well. So, man's role in society has its great significance. Man's
life is indeed very valuable. To be worth the name of man, can one disregard the
sense of values in life ? In that case, a man need not have been a man.
Therefore, whatever one is -- a sportsman, an engineer, or something else -- one
must understand the basic problems of life. And to understand the problems,
Marxism is essential and indispensable.

Material world exists independently of human consciousness

There are many other aspects of philosophy about which you need to have a
clear understanding. Say, this material world -- does it exist because of
existence of the human mind ? Is its existence dependent on human
consciousness ? Or is it independent of man's consciousness ? We shall have to
rely on science to get the correct answer to this question too. It cannot be
denied and it has been indisputably proved by science that the pulsation of life
began and the plants and different species of animals appeared at different
particular stages of development of organisms, in the course of evolution of
this planet and, in the process, came man with his mind. Non-living inorganic
matter, through a long course of change and development, evolved into organic
matter at a particular stage under favourable conditions. But it would be wrong
to think that any and every organic matter is living matter. The correct concept
is that mainly through combination of organic compounds, in the course of change
and development over a long time, living cells came into being. And from these
living cells, again through a long and complex process of change and
development, unicellular and then multicellular organisms or living bodies
emerged. Again through a long process of development of living bodies emerged
the human being. The most distinctive feature of the human being is the
structure of its brain, because the power of thinking is ingrained in it. This
is the fundamental difference between man and the other animals. From scientific
experiments and observations we have come to know about the human body and also
in particular about the structure of the human brain, existence of its enlarged
and developed cerebral cortex. All these have lent the human brain a unique
quality -- its power of translation. It is this power which enabled man to think
and thus man's mind materialized. Thus, in the long course of change and
transformation of matter, from inorganic matter to organic matter, then from
non-living organic matter to living cells, and from living cells arose the
different living forms.

When we view the changes in the material world and, indeed, any process of
change, then to grasp all this correctly we need understand clearly a few
related points. We have to understand that the changes going on in the material
world are of two types. First, change is happening every moment. The change
which matter undergoes every instant is not generally perceptible. This change
occuring to matter all the time is called gradual, slow, evolutionary or
quantitative change. The second type of change that matter undergoes is the
culmination of this first type of change.

In the course of gradual, quantitative change, the nature and character of
change in matter reaches a stage when change becomes not only perceptible but
clearly discernible, marking a clear break with the previous. This second type
of change is the abrupt, revolutionary, or qualitative change. In scientific
terminology, these two types of change are sometimes also called continuous and
discontinuous change respectively. This qualitative change of matter occurs when
matter reaches the transitional stage or nodal point in the course of
quantitative change. So, in order to understand change in its entirety, we have
to understand both these types of change.

We know that Charles Darwin explained the developments in the living world
with his theory of evolution. Both Marx and Engels accorded great importance to
Darwin's discovery for the way his theory of evolution struck at the roots of
the then idealistic thinking about development of the living world. Subsequent
strides made by science unquestionably established that change in the material
world in its entirety could be comprehended and explained not through gradual
change alone but by reckoning the qualitative, fundamental, or revolutionary
change as well. If this scientific conclusion is borne in mind, it is not
difficult to understand the course of formation of organic matter from inorganic
matter, of complex organic matter essential for emergence of life, and
ultimately of life and the living world in the process of successive
quantitative and qualitative changes.

Another point should be grasped in this context. In the material world, or in
any of its spheres, it is through contradiction, conflict, unity and struggle
that changes are happening continuously -- and this characterises the material
world. Contradiction of matter has two aspects -- internal contradiction and
external contradiction. The contradiction and conflict going on within any body
or entity is its internal contradiction. The contradiction and conflict between
different bodies or entities is called external contradiction. Changes in the
material world come about through both internal and external contradictions. I
shall discuss quantitative and qualitative changes and also internal and
external contradictions of matter, drawing illustrations, when I shall be
entering into a discussion on the three principles of dialectics.

What is mind

Let me come to another point. Philosophers debated for long in the past on
whether mind came first or matter, that is which of the two was prior. But the
point of this 'priority' has been resolved by science, and once for all. That
matter is prior to mind and it exists independently of consciousness is now
established beyond doubt. We also know now that, through the sense organs, the
external world or the objective reality comes into interaction with the human
brain with its distinctive power of translation and it is through this process
that thoughts and ideas arise. What is mind then ? Mind is a particular function
of the human brain. The human brain, through a process of interaction with the
objective world and translation into human reasoning, gives effect to this
particular function -- the mind. So man's power of thinking, the basis of the
human mind, the product of the distinctive structure of the human brain,
developed through interaction of that brain with the external world. What
happens in the case of other animals is conflict only -- action-reaction --
between nature and their nervous system, which is called the reflex action. The
reflex action is there in the case of man too. But what distinguishes man from
other animals is the power of translation of the human brain by virtue of which,
through adaptability and a process of elimination, thoughts and ideas arise.
This ability or process exists and operates in the functioning of the human
brain only. All animals have brain but only man's brain has the power of
translation, as I mentioned just a while ago. So man is the only creature to
have triumphed over nature, leaving other animals far behind. In this process,
knowledge and science developed as also the concept of the right and the wrong,
and morals and ethics, and thus has civilization advanced.

So I repeat, matter is not a product of mind or consciousness. Again, it is
not correct to say that mind or consciousness exists side by side with matter
from eternity. Such a notion is ahistoric and unscientific. Mind or
consciousness is inseparably linked up with man. So long as man had not come
into existence, thinking, mind and the concepts of right and wrong, of morality
and ethics could not and did not exist. So, the idea that thinking or
consciousness flowed from eternity has no objective basis. But there have been
many thinkers who could not wholeheartedly accept this. I am not speaking of
ordinary people. This scientific analysis of development of the human mind or
thinking has not been acceptable to many illustrious thinkers as well. For
instance, erudite exponents of science, philosophy and literature like Bertrand
Russell, Jean Paul Sartre and Aldous Huxley could not accept this truth fully.
What transpires from their line of thinking is this : How can the tiny human
brain conceive the vast and limitless universe ? How is it possible ? What comes
out from Sartre is that thinking or consciousness, what he called an element of
intellect, is neither a product of matter or a supra-matter entity, nor it is
totally dependent on or is conditioned by matter -- it has been ingrained in
matter from eternity as an element of thinking. The confusion such thinking has
created in cultural and intellectual spheres is beyond the purview of discussion
today. But the views of these intellectuals can be accepted as truth only in
disregard of history and reality. Besides, analysing a bit more, you would find
that they have in effect sought to project the concept of absolute independence
of human thinking and have helped in breeding a reckless sense of liberty with
this sort of thinking, even if unknowingly. Their attitude is, as if, human
thought is not influenced or controlled by the material world or the material
condition. So, you see, despite being renowned philosophers, scientists and
litterateurs, how easily they fell victim to unscientific thinking.

Be that as it may, you should remember that an objective basis works behind
each of the different ideologies, thoughts and concepts in society. That is, a
thought cannot appear unless the material condition conducive to its growth
developed prior to it. So, even when one indulges in some wrong thinking, it has
to be understood that the scope for it was there in the overall material
condition. Therefore, human thinking cannot be viewed in isolation from the
material world and the objective condition. I would request those, who believe
that thinking is the contemplation of god, to ponder over whether in reality it
is the other way round or not. It is the human brain which begot the idea of
god. We know that the idea of existence of an element of thinking or
consciousness outside the human brain is at variance with science and history.
Whatever thoughts appeared in society, whether the thought of god or of anything
else, or whether it is right or wrong, the human brain has been the source of
all thinkings. It is said, therefore, that the human brain is the organ of
thought. This is the truth established by science and history. It is thus not
correct to say that the material world exists because man thinks that it exists;
rather, the human brain developed in the course of change and development of the
material world and it is this brain that interacted with the environment and the
objective reality through the sense organs, and thus begot thought or idea. To
highlight this aspect, some philosophers have even said that matter is thinking.

Primitive thinking was materialistic

In many earlier discussions I said that primitive man's thinking was
materialistic, he could not conceive of any non-material or supra-matter entity.
At the dawn of man's thinking when he had just been able to think, whatever he
thought it pertained to matter. Primitive man had no concept at all of
supra-matter entity, nor was it possible. So man's primitive thinking had no
room for anything other than matter. This is why it is said that primitive man's
thinking whatsoever was materialistic. Let us now examine how the concept of god
originated in society. Comrades who listened to discussions on Marxism and
dialectical materialism in earlier classes are acquainted with all these. But I
should discuss these anew, keeping in mind the newcomers.

Students of history know that primitive man was the originator of magic,
mantras,[1] etc. He
took to these with the objective of gaining control over matter, taming the
forces of nature and the harmful powers of matter. We have it from history that
magic constituted man's first effort to know matter. That is why primitive man's
magic has been termed the primitive science. If science originated from the
effort to know matter, that effort began with the primitive man. This 'science'
of those days did not practically help primitive man to know, understand or tame
the forces of matter. Nevertheless, this is how primitive man sought to control
matter. How much did man know of matter then is a different question. But should
you want to understand what he sought to achieve through magic you will have to
consider the type of problems he faced. Suppose, a big stone fell down and hurt
some men, or a fire broke out and burnt things. Man could not make out the
causes of all these. In those days, man had no idea of why a big chunk of rock
fell down or a fire broke out. Man came to know later that the fall of a stone
is due to a physical force, not a supernatural force.

But to man of the primitive age, these were harmful, evil forces. So he would
try to propitiate or control these forces by appeasing them. He used to think
that unless he could appease and propitiate these forces, these might do them
harm. So, primitive man used to dance and gesticulate before a chunk of stone or
a fire in the hope that this would appease the evil forces. But the point to
note is that man did not think of existence of a supernatural entity. The forces
which the primitive man tied to please by chanting mantras and doing
all these things had their origin in matter. He had no other means at his
disposal nor did he have the thinking capacity to invent anything besides these.
Whether he could grasp the nature of matter or not, the endeavour to know the
material world was there. The urge to know matter was there despite the means
adopted by him. At a later stage, these mantras and magic were reduced
to means of worshipping gods and goddesses. The strange fact is that the magic
used in the primitive ages as the means to know matter, whether it served that
purpose or not, acquired a totally different character in later times and became
an integral part of offerings, worship and such other religious ceremonies. Even
after so much development of science, even after the discovery and harnessing of
atomic energy, mantras continue to exist as part of religious
practices.

So you see, primitive man's thinking was materialistic. He did not conceive
of any supra-matter entity, although he had no correct idea about the nature and
character of matter. What we know and understand of matter today was not known
to man of those days, nor was it possible. He struggled to know matter, he had
to struggle against nature in order to advance. It was not possible for him to
conceive of god as the creator, or of any other entity independent of matter.
Thinking about god had no room in his mind. The idea of god or a supernatural
entity came much later, only after conditions conducive to the emergence of such
thinking had appeared in society, and not before that. So, an environment
conducive to the emergence of the idea of a supra-matter supernatural entity in
the human mind, on the one hand, and development of the capacity for thinking
and imagination on the other -- a combination of these two -- led to the idea of
god.

How idea of god appeared

When did the idea of god appear ? It appeared at a time when society had
become class divided, stable property had appeared, and a kind of administrative
system under a ruling circle had been established. This stage of social
development with a ruler heading the administration and laying down laws as he
willed, which had to be obeyed by all, and the society being run in a more or
less organized, disciplined manner, seized man with an idea. He observed that
the world around him was governed by some laws. Sunrise and sunset, and day and
night followed one after another; seasons changed -- winter, then summer, then
the rainy season -- each coming periodically; ebbs and tides, the new moon and
full moon alternating -- everything followed in a regular order, obeying certain
laws. So the thought struck man that if society could not be run in an orderly
way without a law-giver ruler who was the master, how could the vast universe
run so orderly unless it had a lord or a master ? That is, having observed the
role of the ruler in maintaining discipline in society, when man sought to
investigate why nature and the universe was law-governed, the similarity of
order and discipline between the two struck him and on that ground he got the
idea of a supermaster -- the god. This is the basic cause why, and this is how,
the idea of god appeared in society.

Another point. Such questions did not strike man at the very beginning just
because he had observed the disciplined orderly changes in nature. Man could not
think of correlating social discipline with the disciplined order of nature or
the master of society with the idea of an almighty god so long as 'jungle-law'
prevailed in society and there was no law and order. When man was still in the
stage of animals virtually, and used to roam about in forests divided in hordes
and the question of a society with law and order had not arisen at all, the idea
of god had not appeared in the human brain, although man had been observing the
orderly changes in nature. Precisely at what stage of society did the idea of
god appear and what was the specific social system obtaining then are subjects
of detailed social-anthropological research. Many researchers, including Morgan,
have investigated this. From these researches and the cave paintings of
primitive man and such other available data and materials, it appears that the
idea of god first struck man in the slave society which was divided into slaves
and slave masters.

However, you have noted that even when man practised magic as a means of
knowing and controlling matter or the forces of matter, idealism or the concept
of god had not appeared in society. I have told you very briefly about why and
in which circumstances the idea of an almighty god appeared in the human mind.
Later on, the celestial bodies -- the stars, planets, satellites, all made of
matter -- were sought to be projected as forces transcending matter, and this
way a supernatural power was ascribed to the sun, moon, jupiter, venus, saturn,
etc. Such supernatural forces have not been explained in the same way in
different religions. The interpretations given in the Koran, the
Bible and the Hindu scriptures differ. But in one respect they are
essentially the same, inasmuch as in all the religions a supra-matter,
supernatural, omnipotent entity has been conceived as the fundamental basis of
everything -- anything happening in the universe is as per his will. All
religions hold that god's will is a free will independent of the laws of matter
and that the material world with its laws is but the expression of his will.
Once god had been described as nirakar,[2] that is without any formal structure.
Attributes of god have been described in great detail in the religions, but
nobody could get to know who is god and where his abode is. There is no way of
knowing these because god does not exist anywhere except in the human brain --
in man's imagination, that is on the mirror of his mind. You have already heard
how the idea of god appeared in the human mind. At one stage of the Hindu
religion, plurality of deities was conceived. The interpretations of different
religions have taken different forms in varying circumstances, although the
essence of all religions is basically the same as you have just heard.

So you see, although primitive man's thinking was materialistic, idealistic
thinking appeared in society at a particular stage of its development. Since
then, idealistic and materialistic thinkings have been there existing alongside
of and in struggle with each other. So, the thoughts of human society can
broadly be classified into two categories -- the idealistic and the
materialistic. The idealistic thinking again is subdivided into many schools of
thought which are in mutual contradictions, on the one hand, but have a basic
unity too, on the other. It should also be understood that the idealistic
thinking is not necessarily theism. There are many idealists who do not believe
in god -- they are atheists. They want to rely upon science. But even so, their
thinking has not always been based on science. Though not believing in god, they
have in fact fallen victim to idealistic thinking and practice of idealism.
Though there are differences in the expressions of the idealistic thinking,
barring the atheists all idealists have accepted the existence of supra-matter
entity on some question or other. They have all subscribed to the belief
subjectively, that is, they have anyhow assumed the existence of a supra-matter
entity outside the material world and the laws governing it. What they all have
agreed on is that it is not that only the material world is real, supra-matter
entity too exists. Where they differ is where and how this supra-matter entity
exists. This is nothing but a variant of the idealist process of thinking. On
the other hand, the main contention of the other school of thought, the
materialist thinking, is that matter is the basis of all thought. Protagonists
of this school of thinking hold that only the material world is real, no
supernatural supra-matter entity exists in the universe. This particular process
of thinking is called the materialist thinking. Many a philosophy have developed
on the basis of this materialist thinking, because although all are
materialists, their concepts and interpretations of matter do differ.

Idealism and materialism

But I will not go into the differences among the various idealist
philosophies as also among the various materialist philosophies. Incidentally, I
like to point out that with the development of epistemology and science, and
with experience in course of advancement of human society, both the idealist and
the materialist schools of thought have continually changed and thus have
developed to their present stages. Even after the idea of god appeared in
history, that too has not remained static -- it had had to grapple with many a
question and problem. For instance, it has been considered in some religions
that man is born good. But experience shows that there are not only good men but
bad ones too in society. So, it has got to be admitted that the same god created
bad or evil men along with honest and good ones. Or else, if it is assumed that
god is the creator of only good men then the idea of existence of satan as the
creator of evil men from the very inception of creation is inescapable.
Considered thus, it boils down to this that satan too, along with god, should be
viewed as the creator of the universe. Man has had to face such intricate
questions. Confronted with such issues some discarded the divine theory itself
and became agnostics who hold that the question whether god exists or not, is
beyond the purview of human knowledge, and so this could not be a concern of
man.

I may recount an experience of mine in passing. I have had occasions to meet
persons who are atheists but bourgeois humanists, not Marxists or dialectical
materialists. Their thinking is that the belief in god is the root cause of all
evils and exploitation. They hold that class struggle, Marxism, etc., have no
basis and are of no use ! Their contention is that unless god can be banished
from the mind, there can be no emancipation of man. They say that unless man
stands on his own legs, he cannot protest against injustice and fight against
the god cult, and the reason why man endures oppression and tyranny and takes
the onslaughts lying down is his fatalism, or belief in god. So their contention
is that if only the belief in god could be dispelled, man would stand up with
his head high. Such is the frame of their logic. You have to bear in mind that
Marxists have nothing in common with these atheists. Marxists too are atheists
but atheism ipso facto is not Marxism. There are many atheists who are rabid
anti-Marxists. But we had better keep in mind that there are instances in
history when Marxists moved together with the believers in struggles against
injustice and exploitation, but have seldom been able to work unitedly with
these atheists.

Let us now come back to the earlier discussion. When the idea of god appeared
in the class divided society after the appearance of stable property and the
idea of the almighty god struck firm roots in human mind, in this situation
people came to consider the king and the lord the representatives of god. They
thought that just as god ruled the universe, the king, as the representative of
god, ruled the country and society, and ruled everybody. So, people came to
believe that if one was loyal to god one had to be loyal to the king, that is,
they used to think that if one did not want to oppose god, one should not go
against the king either. Conversely, the belief was that one who betrayed the
king might as well betray god. Such was what religion generally came to mean in
that period. The religious-minded did not revolt against monarchy. Their belief
in god helped to protect monarchy.

But I beg to differ with those who hold that idealist philosophy has all
along been an instrument of exploitation in the hands of the exploiting class in
all stages of history. I consider this concept unobjective and a distortion of
history. However, I consider them equally wrong who claim that materialist
thinking had all along been a weapon in the hands of the exploited classes.

Role of idealism and materialism in history

Consider the instance of the slave society, divided into slaves and slave
masters. You have heard grim accounts of inhuman torture on the slaves by their
masters. Many a woeful tale have been written on this which still now move the
mind deeply. Those episodes are heart rending indeed. The believers in
Christianity were confronted with a question on the oppression of slaves by
slave masters. Following the teachings of Jesus Christ and the precepts of
Christianity, they sincerely believed that all men were created equal by god.
They believed that no discrimination should be made between the creatures
created by god. Guided by this precept rooted deeply in their mind the slaves
had organized themselves and protested against the slave masters. They thought
that since Christianity preached equality of all, the slave masters, by
perpetrating oppression on the slaves, were acting against the will of god, and
so to torture the slaves was to defile Christianity. Viewed from this angle, it
is not difficult to realize that Christianity helped the slaves in a way to
organize struggles against the injustice and oppression by the slave masters and
in that sense helped in social progress at that time. Similar was the case with
the adherents of Islam as well.

The point should be examined from another angle also. You should bear in mind
that it was the religion at a particular stage of social development that helped
in furthering the concept of morals and ethics, the sense of values, the concept
of right and wrong, the spirit of service to others and not despising anyone. As
a result, a sense of discipline grew which helped to bring about consolidation
and cohesion in society. From this angle too, religion played a role in social
progress. So my point is that to the extent religion helped in social progress
and at which stage of history determine its historical value. To deny this is to
deny history itself. Whether the religious interpretations are correct or not is
a different matter. The point is, it is true that idealistic thinking has
historically been used as a tool of exploitation by the exploiting class most of
the time, but I am unable to agree on the contention that religious thought or
idealistic thinking never played a positive role in social progress.

Again, if one thinks that materialist thinking has all along been an
instrument of struggle in the hands of the exploited classes, I feel that is not
fully correct. You all know that the very same kings and lords who projected
themselves as representatives of god at one stage afterwards became oblivious of
the 'heavenly abode' and indulged in pleasures and luxury, considering enjoyment
of life, in the crude sense, the be-all and the end-all. Actually, by this they
practised vulgar materialism, and no religious precept or religious sense of
right and wrong worked in them. By disregarding the question of virtue and vice,
they could think only of how to enjoy life, inducing others in this way to be
selfish and obstructing social progress in reality. Again, the philosophy of
Charvak[3], you know, is a
materialist philosophy. I am not discussing it in detail here. The point is,
Charvak did not believe in a 'world beyond death'. At the same time he opposed
the religious and ascetic practices; and there is a saying attributed to him,
which is in wide circulation, exhorts :

That is to say, since Charvak was a non-believer in a 'world beyond death' he
was making a plea for living in pleasure as long as one lived. In whatever sense
Charvak might or might not have said it, many have interpreted his doctrine to
mean that pleasure is the chief good in life, and so one is free to enjoy
oneself without bothering about the wellbeing of others. Clearly, this kind of
materialistic thinking makes a virtue of self-interest to the exclusion of
interest of society, helping thereby to breed opportunistic thinking and hinder
social progress in effect.

Interrelationship of man and environment

Let us get back to the main discussion. Those who are acquainted with the
long history of social development cannot deny that in the process of fighting
against nature from his urge for a better living, at some stage, man gained the
capacity and gave birth to the productive system. Man's consciousness or
conscious action has all along been engaged in the purpose of knowing nature and
fighting against it under different conditions. This means, the growth and
development of man's thinking went on through interaction, unity and struggle
between the human brain, on the one hand, and man's environment on the other --
the social environment based on production system and the external world. Here
'environment' includes everything around man -- the material world, social life
and nature -- and it should be understood as such, comprised of everything with
which man has to have relationship in order to live. Man is involved in this
environment as a point of contradiction, a condition of contradiction, as a
particular entity. So, man and his environment cannot be viewed in isolation
from each other. Man's thinking has developed through interaction, unity and
struggle between the human brain and its environment.

Another point. Students of social sciences know that in the primitive stage
of society when it had not become class divided, there was no question of class
struggle playing a role in social progress. Even so, social advancement took
place then. A question, therefore, naturally arises that since there could be no
progress without contradiction and conflict, which forces in contradiction had
made social progress possible in the primitive society which was not class
divided and had no class struggle. To understand this, we should remember that
the contradiction between the human brain and its environment in the primitive
society constituted the main contradiction in that society. The then society
advanced centring round this contradiction. By environment should be understood
the environment in a given condition, in its greater perspective, embracing
everything. And this environment, or situation, is called the objective or
material condition. Again, if this material condition changes, then that too
goes to influence man because the changed condition gives rise to a new
contradiction or conflict between man and his environment, leading to emergence
of new thoughts. But the point which should be noted is that the new thoughts so
generated through contradiction and conflict between the human brain and the
material condition do not come into being automatically along with the change in
the environment. It takes some time for the new thinking to emerge after the
change in the environment has taken place. Those who believe that man's thinking
changes automatically along with, and in accordance with, changes in the
environment, suffer from a mechanical bent of thinking. You should also know
that the material world is the basis on which the world of ideas or the
superstructure develops. Existence of the world of ideas cannot be conceived
without existence of the material world. I have already discussed that idea or
thoughts arose through interaction between the human brain with its higher
structure and power of thinking and the material world. So, the brain is the
basis of man's power of thinking.

Again, with the appearance of idea or thoughts man's contradiction and
conflict with the environment took new turns. Since then, not only has man
influenced the material world and society but the material environment in turn
has also helped in enhancing the capacity of the human brain, its power and
adaptability to conceive a new thought. As a result, the structure of the human
brain is itself becoming more developed and complex. So I say, just as matter
gives birth to thinking, thinking too influences the material condition -- an
interrelationship is there between the two.

But keep it always in mind that matter is the origin of thinking, hence
matter is prior. The brain with which man thinks is nothing but matter. And the
environment or the material condition with which man's brain interacts, giving
birth to thoughts, is also a an organization of matter. So thoughts or ideas
develop in the midst of environment, and again thoughts or ideas help change the
environment itself. However, man is not helpless in the midst of an unfavourable
environment. Development of ideas in isolation from environment is not possible.
If one starts arguing that circumstances have made him so helpless that little
can he do, that would not be a correct way thinking, not to speak of being a
correct materialist thinking. This thinking denies wholly the role of the
individual. This thinking does not take account of the fact that an idea coming
into being has its own role to play, it has its relative independence, and acts
on the environment in turn.

Independence of idea is not absolute, it is relative

So, when idea originated it appeared with its relative independence. Again,
if one reasons that since idea or thought has relative independence, so it is an
independent entity separate from environment, then that too is a wrong way of
thinking. It is to be remembered that the nature of relationship of idea or
thoughts with the environment is dialectical. That is why the independence of
thought, as just mentioned, is relative. It is not absolute. Thought or idea
does not exist independently of space, time and environment. I discussed earlier
that it is unscientific and mechanical to think that with the changes in
environment or material condition, idea or thought would automatically change.
If environment becomes the sole determinant of all ideas and thoughts, and if
man's intellect has no role in influencing and changing the environment, then we
have no alternative but to sink into fatalism. In that case, man's role becomes
ineffectual and sterile. Such beliefs and mode of thinking cannot but be very
harmful for the revolutionary organization and movement. Had we fallen victim to
this kind of thinking, it would not have been possible to build up our party in
the face of tremendous odds and adversities. Moreover, if we place undue stress
on the role of circumstances, we would hold the situation responsible for any
failure of ours. We would argue that we have failed not because of us anyway but
because of the adverse circumstances.

But history tells us that man is the only creature that did not surrender
totally to the forces of nature. There is a gulf of difference between man and
other animals. Whereas the others are slaves in full to nature, man tries to
know nature, understand the natural laws and harness them and, in this process,
man controls the harmful forces and puts to work the useful ones. So, our task
is to overcome all hurdles and obstacles, not to accept defeat. At times we may
fail despite all our efforts. Analysis might show, we had a shortcoming in
judging the situation perhaps. Or else, it could be that we did not succeed
although we had taken the correct steps and made every effort. If the case be
so, we are to understand that the limitations of the objective situation were
such that we could not make any breakthrough. Even as we made every effort, we
lacked in adequate consciousness, strength of character, wisdom and the capacity
required to overcome the objective situation. Whereas, we are misplacing the
blame on circumstances and trying that way to shirk our responsibility. All such
concepts regarding the role of environment are at variance with the
understanding of dialectical materialism.

Base and superstructure

Another point. In Marxism, it is said that the material condition is the
base, whereas ideas or thoughts constitute the superstructure. It does not mean,
however, that once the base undergoes changes, the superstructure changes
automatically. For example, the economic system is called the base of a given
society, and the ideological, political, cultural, educational and juridical
concepts that develop in a society on the base of a particular economic system
are said to constitute the superstructure. But on careful examination it can be
found that in the course of history when a new economic system is established in
society replacing an old one, that is when a radical or revolutionary change
comes about, the superstructure of the old society does not change
automatically. Even after revolution, hangovers from the old superstructure
persist for long in society. However, as I said, idea or mind has appeared as a
product of matter and so matter is the origin of idea or mind. But after idea
had appeared, the nature of the relationship between the two came to be that one
became conducive to the other, being supplementary as well as complementary. It
is not sufficient to understand only this much about the mutual relationship
between idea and matter. Which among the two is fundamental or prior has also to
be understood, the priority conception too should be correctly understood. So, I
repeat, matter or the material condition is prior, because, it is matter that
gives rise to idea or mind. But once idea came into being, it came into being
with a dialectical relation with its environment, each influencing and helping
in bringing about change in the other. At times it is the material condition
while at other times it is the idea or mind which plays the greater role.

I may draw your attention to another point in this connection. Those who
understand the role of material condition mechanically are often heard to
observe that since socialism is an inevitability in the historically determined
course, it would be established some day or other, as per its own law. On this,
they even refer to the Marxist teaching of historical inevitability of
socialism. Their point is, therefore, why should man have to struggle so hard
and sacrifice so much and conduct painstaking struggles to establish socialism.
I had better put it clearly that it would be wrong to approach the issue in this
way. Socialism is inevitable because socialist consciousness against capitalist
exploitation and oppression and struggles on the basis of that consciousness are
inevitable. This is the correct understanding of the teaching that socialism is
inevitable. The concept of inevitability of socialism is not such that socialism
would come about automatically, even if people sat tight without fighting
against capitalist exploitation and oppression. The fatalistic concept of
inevitability of socialism is vulgarization of Marxism. You should develop the
correct understanding on this, and the moment you succeed in it, you will be
able to play a far more effective and conscious role in the revolutionary
movement. All other courses are nothing but evasion and self-delusion.

Another point needs to be discussed here. In the Marxist philosophy it is
said that prior to something coming into being, an urge for it grows, that is, a
necessity works behind its emergence. Here the term 'necessity' seems to have
been used in a somewhat all-embracing manner. I think that there should not be
any difficulty if the matter is understood properly. Otherwise, there remains a
scope for distortion of the point. We have to enrich our understanding of it
adequately so that those who seek to distort Marxism get no such scope. I think
the term 'necessity' is applicable in case of development of human thinking or
ideology, and in relation to social progress, but not in a general sense. We
should understand that when we speak of social necessity or social urge in this
understanding of 'necessity', some consciousness or comprehension of it is bound
to be there. But in the distant past there were great changes in the material
world in the course of cosmic evolution when neither life and human thinking nor
any sense of social necessity had emerged. If we say that a sense of necessity
or urge was responsible for bringing about those changes in the material world,
that would be sinking into idealism. It may mean as if god's or some such
supreme being's urge had been active as the root of creation. Or else, we would
have to admit that consciousness had been active in the material world in a
latent form, even if as an element, and as if it had been flowing from eternity,
being ingrained in matter. If we think this way we should also have to admit
that consciousness, in whatever way, has been inherent in matter all along. That
is why I was saying that the term necessity should not be used in an
all-embracing sense; that is not the correct understanding either. 'Necessity'
as used in classical Marxism would have to be understood as 'necessary
condition'. That is, change in the material world happens or can happen only
when the necessary condition matures. In the case of society, it is this
'condition', that is, the social urge or necessity, whereas in the case of
nature, it should be understood as the material condition -- conditions which
are ever created anew in this changing world.

Development of philosophical thought

I shall now try to put before you a few other aspects of philosophy. You have
already heard that primitive man's thinking was materialistic. Inception of
idealist thinking in society occurred much later. After the appearance of
idealist thinking, both the materialist and idealist schools of thought have
been there side by side. Although ideas and concepts of both these categories of
philosophical thoughts have undergone many a change, some aspects of which I
have already discussed, it should be understood that when humanist thought made
headway against feudal ideas and concepts, the protagonists of this humanist
thinking sought to advance on the basis of science. It was a time when a
scientific foundation had been laid for the natural sciences. It can be said
that this onward march of the natural sciences practically started with Newton
who made many epoch-making discoveries in different fields of science. Newton's
scientific investigations and formulations shed new light on gravitation, laws
of motion and many other problems. But it is equally true that for historical
reasons there were some limitations then to the progress of science. For
instance, Newton's discovery of the laws of motion of matter played a role in
the advancement of science. But why matter moves, what is the cause of such
motion, was not known then. To Newton matter appeared inert. That is why,
although a scientist, Newton had to think of a prime mover, a first impulse. An
illustration will help clarify this point. Men had observed that a football
moved when kicked at, a shot was fired from a gun when its trigger was pulled, a
pendulum swung after the clock was wound up. Such experiences were there with
man in those days. From all this, Newton concluded that the cause of motion of
matter was external to matter. That is why he assumed that a prime mover had
imparted the impulse of endless motion in matter and that was why matter was in
motion obeying the laws of motion which he himself had discovered. The concept
of mechanics that developed on this has been called Newtonian mechanics. The
main point of this mechanics is that for matter to be in motion a force must be
applied on it to start with. Science of those days could not go beyond this, but
the cause of motion of matter is no longer unknown to modern science.

Another point regarding the character of matter should be mentioned here.
Once atom was considered the smallest particle of matter and this atom was found
indivisible. At that time proper instruments and experimental methods were not
available to break atom into still smaller particles.

That is why, for a long time the atom was considered unbreakable. The
idealist philosophers of those days, so to say, placed atom on a par
with Brahma, the almighty god. Later on, this misconception was dispelled. It
was proved through experiments and observations that atom could be further
broken up and that it was actually composed of different types of still smaller
particles. This brought about a revolutionary change in the old scientific
concept. Thus, the dialectical materialist concept that every particle is
composed of still smaller particles, which are in mutual interaction, was
established even more firmly through scientific research and experiments.

Let us now go back to the original point of discussion. Materialism that
developed on the basis of Newtonian mechanics and the atomic theory of those
days is called mechanical materialism. Here I remind you again that the thinking
of primitive man about matter, which we have already discussed, was also
materialist. But clearly there is a gulf of difference between the materialist
thinkings at these two stages of development. Again, the concept of matter in
Newton's time naturally had historical limitations. The later advancement of
science, particularly the level, the concepts and ideas of matter attained
during the phase when dialectical materialist thinking developed, which concepts
and ideas are still developing and getting enriched in the light of scientific
discoveries, has clearly revealed the inadequacy of materialist thinking of
Newton's time. Newtonian mechanics was found inadequate to explain the nature of
motion of high velocity microparticles like electrons, discovered at a later
period. For the domain of microparticles a new mechanics -- quantum mechanics or
wave mechanics -- has been developed. It is undeniable that the materialistic
thinking of that time was solely concerned with matter and reflected materialist
thinking. But despite this, mainly two basic limitations were inherent in the
materialist thinking of those days which I have mentioned earlier. So, if the
matter concept of that time is compared to that of today, many inadequacies of
the former become clearly manifest. It is by keeping such inadequacies in view
that all earlier materialist philosophies are deemed idealist in one sense ever
since the emergence of dialectical materialism. Therefore, it is said that these
mechanical materialist concepts, although they concern themselves with matter,
could not reflect truth adequately.

Why are we not idealists ? What is the shortcoming or defect of idealism ? It
is because idealism propagates as truth something which cannot be proved by
reasoning, experiment and verification, and is not corroborated by history and
experience of life and society. As a result, the insight into truth gets blurred
and that cripples the power of judgement and the ability to analyse the
situation. That is why we are opposed to idealism and theism. Otherwise, we have
no quarrels with god. To us, the main question is to know truth, quest for
truth. So ours is the ideological struggle to establish truth and also to fight
against class exploitation, class rule and capitalism for emancipation of man.
So, if we can involve the ardent believers in religion in the struggle against
exploitation and injustice they will get rid of their blind faith some day in
course of their struggle. Please keep this observation in mind.

Now, how far the materialism that is unable to solve the problems because of
its failure to correctly grasp truth basically different from idealism or
religious thinking ? For, idealism or religious thinking too cannot solve the
problems. So, it does not suffice to speak of matter or materialism; more
important is the correct conception of matter. Viewed from this angle, despite
apparent great differences between these two philosophies, in the ultimate
analysis they fall almost in the same category. Lenin said, therefore, that all
materialism except dialectical materialism were objectively nothing but
idealism. That is, by the yardstick of dialectical materialism, all other
varieties of materialism that have appeared so far in history are but variants
of idealism. But here I want to say that when we speak of the other varieties of
materialism as being variants of idealism I do not mean them to be synonymous
with idealism. It is not like that. Actually, by this it is intended to stress
that dialectical materialism is the most developed process of thinking that has
evolved in course of the long history of materialist thinking.

Every atheist is not a dialectical materialist

For instance, there are many among the humanists who consider themselves
atheists. There are some among them who think that religion, Marxism, party
politics, or the theory of class struggle are equally responsible for all the
evils in society. To many of them, the question of individual liberty and
individuality is all important, and individual liberty as conceived by them is
independent of objective or social conditions. It is almost the concept of
absolute freedom of individuality. It never occurred to these intellectuals who
are proponents of this kind of ideology and who wanted to adhere to science that
science had never accepted the existence of any entity in the universe that was
unchangeable or eternal. Again, there is a class of intellectuals who, although
they do not believe in religion and god, consider going to church a hypocrisy or
ignorance. They failed to analyse in accordance with the scientific conclusions.
So, eventually, they fell victim to idealism. Intellectuals like Bertrand
Russell, Sartre or Huxley belonged to this category, although their thoughts
were not wholly identical. All of them tried to adhere to science and supported
materialism generally, and yet all of them were humanists and objectively
idealists.

Hegel-Feuerbach-Marx

Incidentally, I want to touch upon one or two other points. You know that
Hegel was a distinguished figure in the philosophical world. I consider him the
most powerful among the idealist philosophers. It was Hegel who first formulated
the three principles of dialectics, the dialectical methodology that you have
heard of. Hegel said that the universe with all its phenomena and the material
world we see around followed the dialectical process of change. But in order to
explain why Hegelian philosophy, in spite of such analyses, is called an
idealist philosophy, we should discuss it, even if briefly. Hegel said :
everything in the world exists in contradiction. The process of
contradiction-unity-struggle is operating in every thought, everything in
society, that is, class divided society, and it is through this contradiction
that all changes come about. That the contradiction between thesis and
antithesis leads to synthesis is also Hegel's contribution. But even after
having said all this, in his philosophical system matter was viewed as the
dialectical expression of an absolute idea. That is, the absolute idea he viewed
was dialectical. But the question arising from this was that if idea was
dialectical, then how could it be absolute at the same time ? Or, conversely, if
idea was absolute, then how could it be dialectical ? What Hegel assumed was
that idea was the 'original idea' which had inherent contradiction within itself
and it was this contradiction that had led to creation of the material world. It
means that the material world is an image, and in that sense, it is an
expression of an absolute idea. So, Hegel's dialectics became the dialectics of
idea, and thesis-antithesis-synthesis became the laws of changes in thought or
idea. Therefore, it is clear that Hegel could not grasp the nature of the
relationship between matter and idea, nor the process in which idea was created
as a result of contradiction-conflict of matter at a particular stage in course
of a long history of change in matter. That is why Hegel's philosophy became
dialectical idealism and not dialectical materialism. It became an idealist
philosophy.

This had created some problems then. In Germany, Hegel's followers became
divided into two camps. One group became the ardent followers of Hegelian
philosophy and the other came to be known as the Left Hegelians who were
somewhat inclined to the Left. Feuerbach was among the Left Hegelians. Their
point was that if the absolute idea was the origin, then everything happening in
the world were all images or expressions of that absolute idea and were,
therefore, real. 'All that was real', Hegel said, 'was rational'. In that case,
one might argue that since committing theft was real, it must be rational too.
So, how could there be the question of punishing thieves ? Hegel protested that
he had never said such things and that his stand was being distorted and things
he had never said were being attributed to him. Or else, how could such crimes
against society be called rational, and were such acts supportable anyway ?
Hegel's critics replied that they never meant to say that Hegel supported theft
but if his philosophical system was accepted, such a conclusion was inescapable.
Such was in general the criticism of the Left Hegelians. Feurbach attempted to
dig out the roots of the problem.

Feuerbach was a disciple of Hegel. He said, Hegel had worked out a nice
philosophical system as such. In his theory Hegel said about matter being
dialectical and about the three principles of dialectics -- these were all
correct. The only trouble concerned his absolute idea. So, Feuerbach said that
the absolute idea was not necessary and Hegel had hypothetically assumed it.
Feuerbach wanted to do away with the concept of the absolute idea and, according
to him, the problem would then cease to exist.

But Feuerbach too could not fully resolve the problem by this, because he had
failed to grasp the main question. Since the concept of the absolute idea was
creating problems, he suggested omitting it. He thought, it would suffice only
if this concept was abandoned. And once this was done, there could not be any
reason to consider social crimes like theft rational on the ground that these
were 'real'. So, Feuerbach dropped the concept of the absolute idea. But then
there remained a flaw in his philosophical thought. It was all right that he
dropped the 'absolute idea', but he failed to grasp the important question as to
how thoughts or ideas originated and also the scientific analysis of the mutual
relationship between matter and idea. This is why Feuerbach too could not solve
the main problem. He could not explain the changes in the material world, and
although he fought Hegel's 'absolute idea' he reduced the concept of ethics and
morals into something static, absolute, unchangeable and eternal. He formulated
a moral code to guide man for all time to come. He felt that otherwise the door
to the wellbeing of mankind would be closed for ever. He laid so much stress on
this code that idea or morals came to mean in effect something static or
eternal. So, with all this, Feuerbach ultimately sank into idealism and turned
into a humanist. Today he is recognized as among the propounders of humanism.
Morals and ethics get supreme importance in his philosophy which he considered
unchangeable and absolute. In other words, what came out from his thoughts was
denial of the fact that along with change of time, with change in the material
world, the world of ideas too underwent changes. Feuerbach's humanism or concept
of human values was static and unchangeable, and objectively it went against
dialectical materialism. As a result, his thinking turned out to be a variant of
theism and religious thinking. Though Feuerbach dropped 'absolute idea' from his
philosophy, eventually he made morals and ethics, his moral code, absolute. He
did not view idea as a product of matter, rather viewed it as an entity outside
matter.

In this background after Hegel and Feuerbach came Karl Marx. He too was a
disciple of Hegel. Once Marx observed that everything was all right in Hegel's
philosophy except that it was placed upon its head and so it had to be "turned
off its head on which it was standing before and placed on its feet --". Also he
made his stand clear on Feuerbach's theory. He said that just as Hegel, by
giving birth to an unscientific thought like 'absolute idea' had lapsed in spite
of his such a brilliant analysis on dialectics, so also Feuerbach, even as he
laid so much stress on materialism, not only turned a humanist ultimately but
objectively denied dialectics itself by assuming his code of morals as
unchangeable and eternal too. The question was : If morality and ethics were
absolute, as Feuerbach propounded, then what remained of dialectical
materialism ? It meant undoing all that had been achieved. Where Hegel had
erred, Marx pointed out, was his assumption that matter was a product of idea or
mind; otherwise, basically, there was nothing wrong with his dialectics. It was
this mistake that caused all trouble. Now we know from science and history that
mind is a particular function of the human brain, and this human brain is formed
of matter. I have also discussed that it is the interaction of the human brain
and the external material world through the sense organs that enables the human
brain, endowed with its special capacity of power of translation, to give birth
to thoughts and ideas. So, in Marxism, idea or mind is called a product of
matter and the relation between matter and idea or mind is not mechanical, it is
dialectical. Our world of thoughts and ideas is inextricably linked with the
material world and the social environment. And the relationship between the two
is dialectical in which each influences the other. We should understand that
ethics, morals and ideology grow and develop out of social necessity. But
ideology and this concept of ethics and morals are not eternal. No society can
advance without ideology, ethics, morals and sense of values. But the very same
ideology that helps society to advance today acts tomorrow as a brake on
society, obstructs social progress and becomes utterly reactionary. This is not
unnatural because man's necessity cannot remain static at any point. That is why
new ideologies must grow to meet the new necessity of life. Neither Hegel nor
Feuerbach could answer comprehensively and correctly these questions.

Assimilating the thoughts of these two philosophers Marx, for the first time,
laid the foundation of the correct philosophy. Not only did he show the mutual
relationship between idea, or mind, and matter, he also showed correctly that
matter was prior. This is very important, this concept of priority of matter,
and should be borne in mind always. Thus, by transcending the concepts of
liberty, equality and fraternity of bourgeois democratic revolution, Karl Marx
gave birth to the concepts of scientific socialism and communism, encompassing
all aspects of life including ethics, morals and values, and laid the foundation
of the comprehensive philosophy of dialectical materialism -- the philosophy
with which man would fight to usher in a new society and a new life led by the
working class. Herein lies the nobility of the philosophy of Marxism.

You know, the old concept of matter has undergone so much changes. The
concept of Newton's time that matter was inert has changed following the
discoveries of modern science. Matter is conceived today as dialectical matter
-- no more is there any room for mechanical concept. Marxism holds that
everything in the universe is but the manifestation of dialectical matter in
diversity. We may know it, or we may not, but the fact is that each and every
particular matter, phenomenon or entity exists amidst contradiction and
conflict. What does that enjoin on the Marxists ? It enjoins on them to find out
the nature and character of the contradiction and conflict in each case, and to
seek the solution on that basis. So unless we can properly grasp the dialectical
methodology which examines everything in its interrelation with the environment,
not in isolation, we shall not be able to find solution to the problems before
us. It is also to be noted that our concept of the changes going on in any
particular matter or phenomenon, the contradiction and conflict between
different forces and the process of unity and struggle, is continually attaining
clarity and our idea enriched more and more. This is the correct scientific
understanding. Can it be argued anyway then that the dialectical methodology or
the Marxian analysis has become outdated and obsolete therefore ? Rather, if the
advanced and developed concepts of matter and of the causes of change can be
continually grasped, it is not difficult to understand that the solution is to
be found out by further advancing dialectical methodology, following the
fundamental principles of Marxism and by applying the same to every problem of
life and society. The question of rejecting Marxism as obsolete does not arise.

Again, Marxism holds that there is nothing in the world divorced from matter,
that is world is all matter. I have already discussed that even mind is a
product of matter and every particular matter or particle of matter exists in
interrelation and in contradiction-conflict with every other particular matter
or particle of matter. Again, every matter, even a particle of matter, has its
internal contradiction. As a result of these two types of contradiction matter
is undergoing constant change. Contradiction is thus of two types -- internal
and external. I shall discuss this later in some detail. At this point I wish to
stress only that every change in nature arises through this process of
contradiction. So how can one expect to be a Marxist avoiding the course of
struggle ?

Marxism and the philosophy of the working class

Let me discus another point in this context. Some Marxist philosophers have
called Marxism the working class philosophy. There should not be any difficulty
with this if the point is understood correctly. Otherwise, some confusion is
likely to crop up. Today progress of human society, solution to all crises and
keeping the social progress unhindered have all become inextricably linked up
with the proletarian social revolution and establishment of the hegemony of the
correct working class party capable of carrying out this task. And Marxism is
the guiding force behind all this. It should be realized that the working class
interest has become identified today with the interest of human civilization as
a whole and, in this sense, the working class today represents the overall
interest of human society and civilization. Therefore, as emancipation of the
whole society is inseparably linked up with the emancipation of the working
class in the present-day world and as Marxism has become historically the weapon
in the hands of the working class in its struggle for emancipation, it is in
this sense that Marxism can be called the working class philosophy.

In this context, I wish to draw your attention to another aspect. First, if
Marxism is called the philosophy of the working class, that may injure a bit the
sentiment of the intellectual elite. Second, Marxism teaches us that, by moving
along the historically determined path of social progress, human society would
one day step into a classless social system free from exploitation, and this
depends on man's playing a correct and conscious role. The question naturally
arises : If we view Marxism as a class philosophy, the working class philosophy,
would it not lose its validity in that classless society ? But it should be
clearly understood that the question of Marxism losing its indispensable
necessity in that classless society does not and cannot arise. Because, as there
is no end to advancement and achievements of science, as science would ever
continue to be developed and enriched, similarly, as a comprehensive science, as
the science of all sciences, Marxism would ever continue to be advanced,
enriched and creative more and more. In that distant future too, Marxism would
provide the correct guidelines for social progress and help in understanding the
laws of changes of the world. That is why, although Marxism can be called the
philosophy of the working class in the particular context of the present
class-divided society, to explain the leading role of the working class and to
show how the working class interest has become identified with the social
interest, the universal approach and appeal of Marxism and its invincibility as
a philosophy based on science get somewhat undermined by this.

Cause of motion is inherent in matter

Let us go back to the discussion on matter. We know now that in Newton's time
matter was conceived as inert since the cause of motion of matter was not known
then and the concept of matter too was somewhat inadequate, owing to relative
backwardness of science. It is known to all students of science today that
matter is not inert, nor static. What is called mass of matter is one form of
existence of matter while energy is its other form of existence. So matter is
both mass and energy. Energy is no longer considered a non-material entity. The
concept of matter that has developed on the basis of knowledge gathered from the
splitting of atom, from radioactivity and the theory of relativity is such that
one no longer has to look for the basic cause of motion outside of matter.
Further, it has been established that of the three forms of existence of matter
-- solid, liquid and gaseous -- motion is inherent not only in gases and liquids
but in the solid state also. The kinetics of the solid state of matter is now
included in the curriculum for students of science. Taking into account all
these, modern science has concluded that the basic cause of motion of matter is
within matter itself; that is, the basic cause of motion of matter is internal.
Besides, according to science, everything in the world is ever changing.
Society, man-made laws, norms, morality, ethics, sense of values, ideology, or
say, the extremely minute particles of matter -- nothing is static. So, in
science motion is viewed as the mode of existence of matter. That is, matter
exists means it exists in motion. Matter without motion is impossible; matter is
ever in motion. Such are the conclusions of science about motion of matter.

Absolute vacuum does not exist

Two other aspects are associated with this concept of motion of matter. These
are space and time. There was a time when we used to consider 'empty space' as
vacuum. But the fact is that there is nothing like absolute vacuum in the
universe. The space we consider empty is empty in the relative sense, not in the
absolute sense. The interstellar space, the space beyond the solar system, once
used to be considered vacuum. It has been established today that what we call
space is the space of matter. Even the interstellar space is packed up with
matter. Matter exists there mainly in the form of radiation or energy.[5] To explain the propagation
of light with the help of the wave theory scientists once assumed the existence
of a hypothetical medium called ether throughout the universe, including
'vacuum'. Ether was conceived as a medium that had elasticity but no mass. But
scientists could in no time detect the untenability of this hypothesis. The
question naturally arose in their mind -- if this was elasticity, then
elasticity of what ? Because, how could there be elasticity if there was no
mass ? Elasticity being a property of matter, it could not exist in absence of
mass. It was finally discarded in the light of later developments of science.
So, the ether hypothesis was untenable. That is why I was telling that there was
no empty space anywhere in the universe[6]. Matter exists means it exists occupying some space --
this space is the space of matter.

Time independent of matter cannot be conceived

Now a little about time. What do we understand by time ? The period taken for
some change to happen is called time. That is, the period of any change of
matter is called time. So time cannot exist in isolation from motion or change
of matter -- independently of matter. That is, existence of matter is
inextricably linked up with time and space. Just as we cannot view matter in
isolation from time and space, it is not possible to view time and space
independent of matter. So, matter exists means it exists in time and space and
is changing with time. This is why time and space are called conditions of
existence of matter. And what about motion ? Motion is the mode of existence of
matter. Now, since time cannot be isolated from matter, the concept of absolute
time outside the existence of matter is nothing but a figment of imagination and
the idea that a supreme being created the material world at some point of time
is untenable. Because, even if we assume for the sake of argument that matter,
or the material world, was created at a particular point of time, a question
cannot but arise at once : If the material world was created at one particular
moment, how do we visualize the moment preceding that ? In that event, we have
to assume that matter, mass, energy, space -- nothing existed prior to that
moment. Had it been true, then time had to be conceived independently of
existence of matter, its motion and change. How is it possible ? So the concept
of absolute time independent of matter is erroneous. Although the question of
origin of a particular matter and its transformation is there, yet the concept
of creation of matter or the material world as a whole at one particular moment
is unscientific. Even those with an elementary knowledge of science know that
matter cannot be created out of nothing, that nothing can be created without
starting from something. Similarly, it may be possible to change the form of
matter, or to transform mass into energy, but it is impossible to destroy
matter. The idea of creation or destruction of matter is, therefore, totally
unscientific. But even after all these findings and achievements of science,
many still believe in a creator of the material world and still assume the
existence of absolute time -- a concept that is nothing but a figment of
imagination.

Question of origin of matter

You know, the question of origin, the question as to who is the creator of
man and the world -- how it all began -- has struck man again and again. Even
after knowing many things of science and the materialist philosophy, the
question that agitates many is : Wherefrom all this began and where it ends ?
Even now we are facing these questions often. True, once it was considered a
serious question in epistemology. But now, in the light of advancement of
science, such questions are considered but the reflection of a sort of
ignorance, because in science origin denotes the origin of a particular thing or
phenomenon and end denotes the end of a particular thing or phenomenon. The idea
of origin or end of the material world as a whole is no longer tenable in
science. It will be easier to follow if the point is explained from another
angle. Take the case of frontside and backside of a thing. If someone asks which
our frontside is and which the backside, there is no difficulty in understanding
that he is meaning the front or back of something particular here. If we start,
say, with those of us sitting on the dais in this hall -- which is our front ?
It can be indicated with an arrow that those of you, who are listening to me
sitting with your faces towards the dais, are in our front. Again, if we start
with those of you who are listening to the discussion sitting in the auditorium,
which is your front ? That too, can be indicated with an arrow to show that we
on the dais are in front of you. So you see, the concept of front or back has a
meaning when viewed with respect to or in relation to a particular position.
That is, the concept is relative, there is nothing as front or back as such in
an absolute sense. Similarly, there are no such things as beginning or end in an
absolute sense. A particular matter or phenomenon has its beginning and end. So,
as it would be meaningless to ask which is the frontside of all the people of
the world, so also it would be absurd to ask what is the origin of the material
world as a whole.

In the same way, we arrive at the very same conclusion from different
examples in science. Say, if we start with some water, put some acid into it and
then pass electric current through it, water will break up yielding two gases --
hydrogen and oxygen. What is our starting point here ? We are starting from
water. What do we end up with ? We end up with hydrogen and oxygen. Now consider
from the opposite side.

If we start with hydrogen and oxygen and combine them in a particular process
and in definite proportions, we shall obtain water through a combination of the
two gases. What is the starting point now ? We start with hydrogen and oxygen.
And what do we end up with ? We end up with water. This is the point. If, after
this, one asks what is the common origin of all the things in the world --
inorganic matter, organic matter, plants, animals, insects, hydrogen, oxygen,
carbon, electron, proton, etc., etc. -- naturally it is not difficult to
understand that the framing of the question is unscientific and reflects a wrong
conception. What I have been trying to impress upon is that a particular matter
or phenomenon has an origin, but there can be no common origin of all things
taken together. You should understand that concepts like front or back, origin
or end, are all relative.

In some circles there have been attempts to distort the concept of
relativity. Some people, lacking a correct concept of the theory of relativity,
have argued that if everything is relative, it can be said that the very
existence of this material world is relative and dependent on human
consciousness or mind. Those who raise this sort of question have not only
misunderstood relativity but have forgotten a very important historic truth. It
is not unknown to anyone and is a truth corroborated by history and science that
mind or the thinking faculty appeared on reaching a particular stage in the
course of development of the material world. So, there is no scientific basis
for the idea that existence of matter is dependent on existence of consciousness
or mind. It is undeniable that existence of the material world or the universe
independent of consciousness is beyond all questions now. It is an accepted fact
in science.

I have already mentioned that before atom could be split, it was considered
unbreakable. Some scientists had even opined then that atoms could never be
split. Based on this idea, the concept of original or fundamental particles had
developed, influencing scientific and philosophical thoughts for a long time.
The only voice that protested against this was Engels'. He said of those
scientists that they were going against the ethics of science because, though
atoms could not be split, how could it be assumed that atoms could never be
broken up ? After all, they had to follow some ethics of science.

It is known to all that not only was the atom split subsequently but, along
with it, the earlier concept regarding the origin of matter fell through. Even
the extremely minute particles of matter are no longer considered the original
or fundamental particles. Scientists now believe that any small particle is an
assembly of some other smaller particles. After this, the concept of a common
origin of the material world as a whole does not stand to test. This is one
aspect.

Again, there developed a serious difference of opinion at one stage among
scientists over the character of the electron -- whether its character was that
of the particle or of the wave. The French scientist de Broglie had shown by
theoretical analysis that the electron, so long accepted as a particle,
possessed at the same time the wave character. This difference persisted for a
long time. The particle character of the electron was established beyond doubt
through some experiments while, later, some other experiments corroborated the
wave character of the electron. So two schools of thought developed among the
scientists on this, each adhering to its opinion and refusing to accept that of
the other.

Now, as noted earlier, mass and energy of matter are interrelated, and either
can be transformed into the other. De Broglie showed that every particle of
matter possessed, apart from particle character, the wave character as well.
This discovery of the wave-particle character of matter shed new light on the
nature of matter itself. De Broglie indicated that depending upon the condition,
that is, upon the particular circumstance or the specific domain, one of these
two became the dominant aspect while the other became less manifest
correspondingly. In the case of those matters which are perceptible by our sense
organs, what are called macro-bodies, the discrete, particle or mass character
is predominant, the wave character being insignificant or negligible.
Contrarily, in the domain of extremely minute particles of matter which are not
perceptible by our sense organs, what are called micro-bodies, the wave
character is dominant under certain conditions, whereas under other conditions
discrete, particle character is dominant. In essence, de Broglie's equation
signifies this. Scientists became sharply divided over this conclusion, but
ultimately, I think, with the help of Einstein's theory of relativity, de
Broglie's theory of wave-particle duality, and several theoretical and
experimental studies conducted by a number of scientists this difference
regarding the character of the electron, was resolved in a way confirming the
wave-particle duality of micro-bodies. The concept of wave-particle duality has
not only reaffirmed but has also strengthened and enriched one of the basic
tenets of dialectical materialism -- that matter is dialectical.

Plurality of cause -- a wrong concept

Another point now. In science and philosophy, it is very important to have a
correct idea about the law of causality. We know, whatever happens in the world
is law governed. I do not want to enter into a discussion of the various laws,
especially the laws governing the capitalist and the socialist economies. But I
do wish to touch upon some aspects relevant to scientific and philosophical
questions. A question is very often asked whether more than one cause can
operate behind a single effect. On this, the logicians have concluded that there
cannot be more than one cause behind any single act or effect. They have
categorically said that the concept of plurality of causes is wrong. What many
argue to be plurality of causes is in reality not plurality of causes but of
factors or conditions. A number of such factors or conditions combine into a
cause behind a particular effect or event. This seems to many that a number of
causes are operating behind that particular effect or event. When, through a
combination of a number of factors or conditions, the cause matures, the effect
ensues. It is to highlight this aspect that it is said that what is the cause
that is the effect, or, cause is the immediate antecedent to effect.

There can be then no question of accepting plurality of causes, a concept
which does not reflect truth. Otherwise, there would be many a problem. If it is
accepted that the same effect may ensue from several causes then it can never be
that the solution to a particular problem necessarily entails pursuing a
particular course of action. It would mean that the communists' viewpoint that a
world communist social system would be ushered in through revolution and
establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat in different countries
eventually and by strengthening socialism through world revolution, by putting
an end to individualism and attaining an advanced standard of
morality-ethics-culture, which is the only historically determined course, would
be faced with a challenge. It might then seem that this viewpoint is mechanistic
and predetermined rather than the conclusion of a scientific analysis. So, those
intellectuals who are advocating plurality of causes are not only taking an
unscientific position under cover of this concept, they are striking at the very
roots of the communist ideology, even if unwittingly.

Not only the logicians but the scientists too have now accepted the
cause-effect relation or the law of causality in all domains of science. But
here too I have noticed a confusion on a point. Some scientists seem to think
that if determinism or the determinist law, which covers also the law of
causality, is accepted then probability cannot be accepted at the same time.
Likewise, they say, if probability is accepted then determinism cannot be
accepted. There has been a lot of such confusion on this point not only among
ordinary scientists but even in case of scientists of de Broglie's stature. Now,
what is the issue really ?

Probability and determinism are not contradictory

First, you should know that probability also has a scientific basis, it comes
under science. So, there can be no question of denying probability. On the other
hand, determinism or determinist law, whatever may we name it, is also a
well-proven truth of science. Therefore, in reality there cannot be any
contradiction between the two. What would then be the correct and scientific
approach on this ? Many comrades attending this class are students of science. I
take it that they are well conversant with these topics of science. They also
know the technical and mathematical aspects of these. But to clarify the point
to everybody here, I may discuss its essence in brief, and I am trying to
explain with a very common and simple example.

Take the example of a minute particle. Various changes are going on every
moment in it. At a particular point of time, let its position be called A. In
the course of change, it moves to a position, say B, C, D or any other,
depending on various interactions and developments. The point is, where exactly
the particle would move to is not predetermined, not only because many factors
simultaneously influence the change but because the change itself is very
sensitive and is going on every moment too. The concept of 'moment' in these
cases is quite different from its everyday usage. Students of science know that
a 'second' can be sub-divided into thousand parts or even more and this has been
conceived in science as a moment.

Since many factors are at work behind the change, and electrons and other
micro-particles are extremely dynamic and since the 'moment' is infinitesimally
small, the change has to be predicted with a probability equation, taking all
factors into account and in accord with the law of probability. But it does not
mean that this goes against determinism. In the example cited earlier, where a
particle may change its position from A to B, C, D or any other, we have to
understand that this change actually takes place being governed by determinism
and not indeterminism. That is, although it is not possible to specify
beforehand which particular position -- B, C, D or some other -- the particle
would move to from its initial position A at a point of time -- A to B, A to C,
A to D, A to some other -- the change is deterministic and law-governed. This is
why I never felt that the theory of probability has any contradiction with
determinism. So I say, just as probability is science, there is no way to deny
it, so also determinism, cause and effect relationship or the law of causality,
whatever we may name it, is also a very important formulation of science and we
must accept it. But if one confuses determinism with predeterminism or fatalism
without understanding it, then it is a quite different matter; because if one
accepts science and engages oneself in pursuit of truth, there can be no place
for fatalism.

Importance of pursuing scientific methodology in all spheres

A question has come up in this class as to why many intellectuals,
distinguished scientists and philosophers fail to grasp some points which are
understood as correct even by the ordinary comrades ? Since the question has
been raised, let me say something on this in passing. You have already come to
know of application of dialectical methodology during the discussion on Marxism.
This question of dialectical methodology is very important. Any man, however
great a scientist or philosopher he may be, if the methodology he follows in
analysing a problem is wrong, then his conclusion is bound to be erroneous.
Unless we examine everything in relation to its environment and amidst
interrelation of various events, that is by applying dialectical methodology,
then we would reach different conclusions although starting from the same
premise or material. This is why our party attaches so much importance to the
process of thinking, process of study, process of formation of the working class
party and the methodology adopted to analyse any issue.

This methodology of analysis should be considered a bit more deeply. Process
of thinking can broadly be classified into formal process of thinking and
dialectical process of thinking. This distinction is very important no doubt,
because the difference between dialectical materialist philosophy and the
idealist and other materialist philosophies stems from this. But even after
this, the question of adherence to this method in everyday activities and in
every moment is very important. For example, those among us who believe in
Marxism and are the followers of the SUCI, it is natural that there would be a
broad unity in our process of thinking and method of analysis. This is important
no doubt, but only this does not suffice. What we have to keep in mind is
whether we are being able or not to conduct our thinking, analysis, study,
discussion, struggles in daily life -- everything in fact -- with the scientific
outlook and following the dialectical methodology. It is necessary to examine
and analyse these things critically and in detail. Because, even if there be a
broad unity in the method of analysis, unless constant vigilance is maintained
to ensure that our thinking and method of analysis are correct in all activities
in the minutest detail and amidst various developments, considerable differences
may ultimately arise while arriving at conclusions, taking decisions and
developing correct understandings. Therefore, scientific process of thinking, a
scientific bent of mind, that is adoption of science and scientific reasoning in
all spheres of life, their correct application and constant verification of
whether the applications are correct -- all these are very important. But it is
our experience that many scientists and philosophers are not aware whether their
process of thinking or system of thought is correct or not. We know of course
that if a scientist wants to succeed in pursuit of science, he has to conduct
himself with a scientific mind and be guided by the ethics of science. If he is
an idealist, his idealist thinking cannot influence his research in the
laboratory. But outside the laboratory when he interprets his scientific
discoveries or experiments, he is apt to be influenced by his idealist thinking.
These aspects should be kept in mind.

Accident and accidental coincidence

We discussed earlier that the concept of predeterminism or fatalism is
absolutely wrong. A question has been raised here. If there is no such thing as
fate, why do accidents occur and why do people die in accidents ? Many may ask
whether this is predetermined or not. My experience is that questions of this
type recur again and again to human mind. This point, therefore, needs a little
discussion. We have already discussed that all changes in the world follow laws,
all events are law-governed. Nothing happens in the world being outside the
purview of laws. When an accident happens, it cannot be assumed that it was
predetermined or not governed by law. It is not like that. If we examine
scientifically, we will count the incident as an accidental coincidence. An
illustration may clarify the point. Suppose a man is very worried about the
illness of his near and dear one and is rushing to a physician or to purchase
medicines. Just at that time, say, a gang of dacoits is rushing along in a car
from the opposite direction at a high speed with the booty of a loot. Now, the
man who is going to the physician or for medicines has reasons to walk fast and
be absent-minded. Again, those who are fleeing with the booty also have their
own reason to drive at a high speed. Clearly, the two cases are unconnected and
the high speed in either case is due to different and unrelated causes and have
no causal connection between them. But the two came in contact at a particular
point of space and time. So, they collided at a particular spot. That is, one
coincided with the other or met the other accidentally, that is per chance. As a
result, the man died. Is there any predeterminism about it ? How does the
question of fate come in ? Had the speed of any one of the two varied for a
moment, there might not have been a collision and the man might not have died.
Now, some may think that, the very fact that none of their speed changed was
predetermined and was ordained by fate. Otherwise, why did not their speed
change ? There is no scientific basis for this kind of thinking, although these
are prevalent as inbuilt superstitions. As various unscientific ideas inherited
from society influence the mind of people, they not only influence their thought
process but also breed many superstitions. This much for the present on this
issue. Let us take up other issues.

Uncertainty Principle">Uncertai

Many of you know that there have been attempts from some quarters on various
occasions to create confusion in the philosophical field over certain issues of
science. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle comes to my mind first in this
context. What is this uncertainty principle ? The position and momentum -- that
is, product of mass and velocity -- of moving electrons cannot be determined
simultaneously with accuracy and precision; the more accurately we may try to
determine one, the less accurate becomes the knowledge of the other.

Once there had been a hue and cry among some scientists and philosophers over
the meaning of this uncertainty principle. If the question is probed in depth,
it will follow that there is no cause for confusion on this. The fact is that
any of these two, position and momentum of moving electrons, can be known with
accuracy or certainty at a point of time, but this makes the knowledge of the
other in determinate at that point of time. It is not possible, in any case, to
know precisely both position and momentum simultaneously. From this, some
started arguing that there were factors indeterminate in nature. This created a
major confusion over Heisenberg's principle. We should remember that the domain
or field we are discussing here is very sensitive since it deals with extremely
minute particles of matter. Even as slightest changes may be occurring in the
condition during when these experiments are carried out, the results would vary
and even the object under study may be influenced or be changed in its state.
These are natural for such sensitive fields. We have just discussed that the
point is not as if neither can be known; the point is, it is not being possible
to determine precisely both the position and momentum simultaneously. Nothing
more than this. So there is no rational ground for creating mysticism over this.
It should not be unknown to those who do so that this Heisenberg principle is
expressed by a mathematical inequation, which is also a type of mathematical
relation. So, the point to be understood is that if no law operates, how could
the principle be expressed by such an inequation, a relation ? There is thus no
uncertainty about it -- nothing erratic or unpredictable really. It is also
clear that this uncertainty principle is also law-governed and is, therefore,
deterministic[7]. We
should understand that the more would science advance and precision instruments
developed to study the characteristics of such extremely minute particles of
matter, the more advanced and enriched would become human knowledge and the
concept of the behaviour of these particles. There is no doubt about this.

In this connection, let me discuss a point about macro-bodies. It is found
that even when a macro-body in a micro-quantity is weighed twice with a highly
sensitive precision-instrument, the same result exactly is not generally
obtained. This is because changes are occurring in the conditions of experiment,
even if in an infinitesimally minute degree. Such changes are happening
everywhere, every moment.[8]

Matter is dynamic and dialectical, not static or unchangeable

Considering the conclusions of dialectical materialism and keeping in view
the points discussed earlier, it will be easy now to understand how the
scientific discoveries have day by day confirmed and enriched dialectical
materialism afresh. Modern science says that matter is not inert but dynamic.
Again, matter is not only dynamic, it is dialectical. Since matter is
dialectical, it is dynamic. So, the reason why matter is dynamic is no longer
unknown. Not only this, motion is not considered external, it is the internal
property of matter arising from internal contradiction and conflict.

Why our philosophy is dialectical materialism

A question has come also up as to why our philosophy is dialectical
materialism. What is the true significance of dialectical materialism ? First,
from all our experience we have gained the concept and arrived at the conclusion
that no supra-matter supernatural entity exists. Even the human mind is a
function of the human brain, a product of matter. Although I discussed earlier
very briefly this point in its essence, I have not discussed it in this class by
relating it to Pavlov's works or the conclusions of modern science on brain
physiology. I discussed it on many other occasions. Owing to shortage of time, I
cannot go into detail of these here. We have it from science that matter begets
matter. Matter can neither be created, nor destroyed. It has neither origin nor
end, although a particular matter has both origin and end. The matter which is
unknown at present is knowable in future. The main task of science and knowledge
is to know and understand matter. We have come to know that matter cannot be
created out of nothing. But matter cannot be called absolute or eternal because
of that. It is wrong to consider matter as something absolute, unchangeable or
eternal, because matter itself undergoes changes all the time. Therefore, it is
proper to view matter as universal, not absolute. Lenin expressed this
brilliantly when he said that matter was a philosophical category. That is, our
concept of matter is that nothing exists outside or independently of matter.
Furthermore, whatever we see around, whatever we can see back in the past or can
see ahead in the future, we do not come across anything but matter, anything
outside or independent of matter. Even man's thinking is a product of matter,
its function. We know, philosophy interprets all that happens or is likely to
happen in the world. It is also true that science provides information and
knowledge while philosophy integrates and provides comprehension. Again, the
material world is the basis of philosophy. This is sometimes expressed in the
language that the essence of thing is matter. So, since whatever we see around
is matter and there is no existence of any extra-matter entity in the world, our
philosophy is materialism. This is one aspect.

The question that may naturally arise now is why our philosophy, which we
call materialism, is also dialectical ? We have already discussed that we have
come to know from various observations and experiments of modern science,
especially of modern physics, that matter is dynamic ; it changes through
contradiction and conflict, and this matter is all-pervading, universal. And
since the character of matter is dialectical because it is ever-changing through
contradiction-conflict, the contradiction of matter is universal too. And since
the subject of our pursuit of knowledge is matter which is itself dialectical,
our philosophy is not just materialism, it is dialectical materialism. It is
through this dialectical methodology that we can know truth, provided we do not
make any mistakes or do not deviate while we try to understand and apply it.

I deem it necessary to touch upon one or two other aspects of matter. One is,
our overall concept of matter is that it is universal but not absolute or
unchangeable as we have just discussed, but when we examine a particular matter,
it is to be studied and understood in its specific circumstances and conditions.
For instance, electron, proton, or say, this chair, table or tumbler, or
whatever matter may we consider, each one is to be considered a particular
matter in a particular position. But it is not such that everything in the world
has been formed of the same particular matter. Every particular matter is to be
understood in the context of its particular position and its contradiction and
unity with other particular matters. This is why matter concept is not abstract
and absolute.

Internal and external contradiction

It is now established that all particular matters are interrelated --
interrelated by unity and struggle. Contradictions, you know, are of two types
-- internal and external. The contradiction within any particular matter is its
internal contradiction and the contradiction between one particular matter and
another is called the external contradiction. Now, the nature of relationship
between the internal and the external contradiction should be understood. First,
we are to understand that they help and influence each other and so the relation
is what we call supplementary-complementary. But it is to be understood that out
of these two, the internal contradiction is the basis of change. The external
contradiction influences the internal contradiction no doubt and in some cases
plays a very important role indeed. But despite this, it should be understood,
when a change occurs it cannot at all come about until the internal
contradiction matures. So, the point is to be understood like this that whatever
influence the external contradiction might have and however important its role
might be in initiating a change, it is the internal contradiction that is the
basic cause of change, the basis of change.

An illustration may help. It is quite a common example -- say, the carbide
gas[9]. If a matchstick is
lighted and brought into contact with this gas, the gas burns. From this it may
be thought that the lighted matchstick is the basic cause for the gas to catch
fire, since the gas burns only when ignited from outside. It is true that in
this case the gas would not have burnt unless it had come in contact with fire.
But if the matchstick fire had come in contact with, say, lime, sand, powdered
brick or many other such things, would these have caught fire ? Everybody
understands that the question does not arise because the properties of these
substances are not such that they could be burnt by matchstick fire. That is,
the internal condition or contradiction of these substances is not such that
these could be ignited by a burning matchstick. But the carbide gas burnt
because the external fire helped its internal condition reach a state when the
gas could burn. Let us now examine the question of relation of internal and
external contradictions in the sphere of social science. If we grasp the
philosophic essence correctly it would be easy to understand why revolution can
neither be imported nor exported. External forces can no doubt help revolution
and play a very important role at times. But unless the internal condition of a
country matures and until the majority of its people get organized under the
correct revolutionary leadership, revolution cannot materialize there with the
help of some external forces. This is why Marxists believe and say that
revolution can neither be imported nor exported. It is not that an external
revolutionary power cannot help the revolution of a country, but that help
becomes effective and revolution reaches its successful culmination only when
the favourable internal condition has developed and matured, otherwise not.

Role of principal contradiction

Let me discuss here one or two other aspects of the contradiction theory. We
know that, as within any particular matter, within society too a large number of
forces operate. There is constant contradiction and conflict going on among
them. The reality is that in every sphere, contradiction-conflict-unity-struggle
among various forces is going on every moment. There is no end to
contradiction-conflict in society centring round economy, politics, morality,
ethics, religious traditionalism, blindness, casteism, individual interest,
customs, conventions, etc. But all these contradictions are not the principal
contradiction; there is one contradiction among them which is called the
principal contradiction. The concept of this principal contradiction is that all
other contradictions operate in society centring round it. What is the principal
contradiction in the capitalist society ? The contradiction between labour and
capital, that is, between the workers and the owning class, is the principal
contradiction in a capitalist society. Ideology, philosophy, economic and
political interests -- everything of these two classes are diametrically
opposite. The interest of the owning class is to sustain this social system,
whereas the interest of the working class is to overthrow it. It is this
principal contradiction that mainly influences social changes. It influences
every individual as well within society. This influence acts both ways. With
some, it acts in favour of sustaining the present social system. With some
others, it strengthens the force that would overthrow the existing order. These
two trends of thoughts -- one tending to sustain the existing social system and
the other trying to overthrow it -- are personified through individuals in
society. So, in one sense, to become a revolutionary means to understand the
principal contradiction of the society correctly and to act consciously to lead
it to its logical culmination. If labour and capital are viewed separately, it
will be seen that many types of contradictions over various issues exist in each
of these two forces. All this should be correctly noted and studied. These are
cases of contradiction within contradiction. But despite these, it should not be
lost sight of that among all these contradictions the contradiction between
labour and capital is the principal one. As I have already said, the role of the
capitalist class, or the bourgeoisie in the capitalist society is to sustain the
existing capitalist order. Again, the historical role of the working class is to
bring about radical changes in this social system. So, our task is to strengthen
the revolutionary capability of the working class in order to accelerate social
progress. It is necessary to strengthen this struggle by co-ordinating and
integrating all aspects -- economic, political, cultural, ideological and
organizational. So, until and unless this principal contradiction can be
influenced sufficiently to bring about the desired change, it would not be
possible to overthrow the capitalist order and build up a new one.

Antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradiction

I shall say a few words now on antagonistic and non-antagonistic
contradictions and then conclude this discussion on the contradiction theory.
From another angle contradictions are viewed also as antagonistic contradiction
and non-antagonistic contradiction. The contradiction between labour and capital
in the capitalist society is called an antagonistic contradiction. The character
of this contradiction is that either of the opposing forces seeks to defeat the
other. In the social background of the capitalist society, the aim of the
capitalist class is to protect and sustain the capitalist system based on
exploitation, and this antagonistic contradiction between labour and capital can
be resolved only through the success of the working class in their struggle to
overthrow the capitalist class from the state power. It is not that there is no
temporary unity between the two opposite classes while the struggle is on, but
it takes place with a view to gaining more and more strength for the working
class to overthrow the capitalist class. This is why this contradiction is
called antagonistic contradiction. I shall try to elaborate on this point a bit
when I shall discuss later the three fundamental principles of dialectical
materialism.

What is then the nature of non-antagonistic contradiction ? The character of
this contradiction is struggle to reach unity ultimately. I may give here an
illustration. Say, in our party, in any working class party for that matter,
everybody from the leadership to the rank and file considers Marxism-Leninism
and dialectical materialism the only correct scientific philosophy. In India, or
in any other country for that matter, members of a Marxist-Leninist party have
to conduct day-to-day work on the basis of unity over strategy and tactics of
the particular revolution of that country. But you all know that despite this it
is natural that at every stage of the struggle difference of opinion or
contradiction appears over various political, organizational and ideological
questions owing to differences in the level of understanding or of experience
between the leaders and the workers within the party. Such contradictions are
bound to appear, even if there be unity in the basic outlook and ideology. But
it is not difficult to understand that those who are involved in this type of
contradiction do not have mutual animosity or malice. Whatever may be the degree
of conflict, this contradiction does not lead to mutual animosity. The aim of
this contradiction is to arrive at the correct decision on an issue through
interaction of thoughts and then to implement that decision in practice not only
to further strengthen the party but also to further cement mutual unity. In the
overall context of the party, it is not difficult to understand, the main aim
and purpose of this contradiction is not to destroy the unity of the party but
to strengthen it further. This is why this type of contradiction is called
non-antagonistic contradiction.

Comrades, in the last few days, you have been listening to this discussion on
different topics of science and philosophy. You have now a clear idea perhaps of
the concept of matter in the light of modern science. You have come to know that
matter is ever-changing; the cause of motion of matter is not external, rather
the basic cause of motion of matter is internal, and the external and internal
contradictions of matter combine to make matter dynamic, and this is why motion
is called the mode of existence of matter, the essence being that matter does
not exist without motion. Now, all these various changes going on in the world
with every type of transformation of matter, be it in nature or be it in the
social sphere, are not arbitrary but are law-governed. You should understand
that no change can occur without following any laws and causality. So, the
object of acquiring knowledge is to grasp the laws of change and to influence
the process of change in conformity with those laws. Without grasping these laws
and consciously acting on them we cannot bring about any changes, including
social changes. That is why the question of understanding these laws is so
important. It should also be borne in mind that a law, in course of time and
under a totally different condition, gives rise to a new law. By studying the
process of changes in this material world dialectical materialism has concluded
that there are three basic general principles that guide every change. These are
known as the three principles of dialectics. I shall conclude this discussion on
philosophy by briefly discussing these three principles along with some
illustrations.

Quantitative change to qualitative change and vice versa

One of the three principles is : From quantitative change to qualitative
change and vice versa. I should cite a few examples to make it clear to
everyone. You should not, however, take the examples mechanically. Excepting one
or two, these examples have been referred to by many a Marxist authority. You
all know, if some water is gradually heated the whole of it gets transformed
into steam at some stage. You must have noticed that when water is heated the
whole of it is not converted into steam instantly. The qualitative change marked
by conversion of water into steam -- here, you should note, the change is of the
physical state, not of the chemical properties of water -- occurs at a
particular stage after heating it for some time, not before that. Now, one may
ask : Is there no change in the water in the early stages after the heating
started ? The answer is : Yes, even then there is change within the water, but
that is quantitative change mainly. The change is quantitative in the sense that
the temperature of the water gradually increases on being heated and the water
gets hot more and more. Then, at normal atmospheric pressure when the
temperature of the water reaches 100°C, with further input of heat the whole of
it is transformed into steam without rise in temperature. Thus, when water is
heated vaporization starts and goes on but the total quantity of water is not
converted into steam before reaching 100°C at normal atmospheric pressure. This
kind of change from water into steam is a qualitative change. It is qualitative
in the sense that water no longer remains liquid but becomes vapour or steam.

The question may arise as to what is meant by 'vice versa'. It should be
noted that the term vice versa here is not used in its usual sense.
That is, vice versa here does not signify the reverse process of going back from
qualitative change to quantitative change. It is not like that at all. This
point may be discussed in the context of the example cited. Students of science
know that whereas the whole of the water is not converted into steam unless the
temperature reaches 100°C, but it is not true to say that no amount of water
gets vaporized or can vaporize prior to reaching that temperature throughout the
whole of water. It is well known that vapour forms from water even at ordinary
temperatures. That is, as the temperature of water increases, which is a
quantitative change, amounts of water get transformed into steam undergoing a
qualitative change before the whole of water reaches 100°C. Again, as molecules
of steam are formed, this qualitative change in turn helps in increasing the
temperature of the residual water and thus accelerates the process of
quantitative change. This is what is meant by 'vice versa'.

Now, this process of quantitative change to qualitative change and
vice versa operates in case of society also. Let us discuss it keeping in view
the capitalist social system and taking our country, India, as an example. You
know, some or other movements -- various organizational activities, class
struggles, ideological and other struggles in whatever form -- are going on
everyday in the country. As a result, at times the capitalist class gains in
strength and at other times the progressive forces gain in strength, and such
ups and downs are always there. As an outcome of all this, continual changes are
taking place in thinking, habits, customs of people -- in everything. But these
changes are not such that they bring about automatically a radical change in the
society. You know, the capitalist system was there in India at the time of
transfer of power from the British rulers and it is capitalism which still
prevails. But there is so much difference between capitalism of these two
stages. On the one hand, crisis of capitalism, technological development and
nature of competition among the capitalists have undergone vast changes. The
economic crisis has intensified, prices of all commodities are spiralling up,
inflation has gone sky-high, the means of livelihood have continually changed
and class struggle too has intensified more. But despite all this, capitalism
still remains capitalism. Although the contradictions within the bourgeoisie are
on the rise, the ruling class is taking advantage of the unorganized state of
the working class and of the absence of a correct working class party with
adequate strength. So, it is very clear that these changes do not signify any
fundamental change in this capitalist order. Again, since there is no
fundamental change, it is not that there are no changes at all. This everyday
change is the quantitative change. When a revolutionary situation develops in a
society and the contradictions within the society reach a climax in course of
such continual quantitative changes, then that leads to a qualitative change or
revolution. Like in the czarist Russia where in November, 1917, the first
successful socialist revolution took place, bringing about a fundamental change
in every sphere, starting with the state structure and establishment of a
working class state over one-sixth of the globe, such a type of change is called
qualitative, sudden, fundamental or revolutionary change.

The change that occurs in everything everyday, every moment, is called
quantitative change, gradual change, etc. But when, at some point of time in
course of such changes, a sudden radical change comes about by transforming the
whole thing, it is called a qualitative change. In Marxism, this phenomenon is
called from quantitative change to quaitative change. In scientific terminology,
these are called continuous and discontinuous changes respectively. So, only if
you can understand the character of the contradiction in society and consciously
act on it would it be possible for you to lead it to the revolutionary
culmination.

Now, how to understand the 'vice versa' in the context of social change ?
Here, too, I shall try to explain the point taking the capitalist social system
as an example. You understand that the changes going on within a capitalist
society everyday, every moment, will not bring about a radical change in the
whole system until the total situation reaches a decisive juncture or nodal
point. Now, when communist revolutionary workers trained up through class
struggles and conscious efforts within this very capitalist system are judged
individually, it would be found that a qualitative change has come about in
their life -- in sense of values, outlook, ideology and aim of life. That you
are receiving education on communism in this class does not mean that with it
your character has automatically undergone a qualitative change.

Only through participating directly in the movements of the exploited masses
against the capitalist exploitation-oppression under the leadership of a correct
working class party, on the one hand, and through relentlessly conducting the
difficult and arduous struggle on the edifice of a higher proletarian culture
and covering all aspects of life, on the other, can an individual become a true
communist in this society. You would do well to realize that until all legacies
of old ideas, habits and fads can be swept away from all spheres of life, it is
not possible for anybody to achieve an all-round qualitative change. Again, in
course of this process of change, it would be seen that particular individuals
have undergone a qualitative change and have become true communists although the
social system has still remained capitalist. These particular individuals are to
be considered particular elements of the capitalist society. So, despite the
overall social structure remaining capitalist, a qualitative change is possible
and is happening in case of particular individuals. And the greater the number
of such persons with communist character and the more the class struggle
intensifies, the more the revolutionary movement gets strengthened and the more
this increased strength helps to accelerate the process of quantitative change
in the society. This is the significance of 'vice versa' in the social
sphere.

From this discussion you can easily understand, to bring about a radical
change of this capitalist society, how important is the struggle not only to
train up one by one a myriad of such communist workers, helping them acquire
communist character through qualitative change in their individual cases, but to
maintain this communist character and elevate it to more and more higher levels.
It is not that in a capitalist society communist workers are being produced
automatically under the impact of class struggles and, as a result, a
qualitative change of the society is taking place in course of quantitative
changes, establishing the socialist state and socialist social system by
overthrowing the capitalist state structure. That is, one cannot be a true
communist without conducting a relentless struggle covering all aspects of life
within the society under the leadership of the genuine working class party
following the Marxist methodology. And without this, revolution cannot succeed
in the country automatically. So, you can understand how important is the significance
of the 'vice versa'. Unless we correctly understand its significance, we
would fall victim to the theory of spontaneity which would mean undermining the
historic responsibility of a communist.

Unity of opposites

Another of these three principles is 'Unity of opposites'. You know, every
person has virtues as well as vices. Just as there is no person who has only
virtues and no vices, there is also no one with vices only and no virtues.
Neither is possible. When we call someone very good or someone else very bad,
what do we mean ? Here 'good' and 'bad' are used in the relative sense. That is,
the person in whom good traits have a preponderance over the bad ones is called
good. Again, if a person has some good traits but these are outweighed by bad
ones he is called bad. There may be a question as to why such differences exist
between one person and another. This is because, how one's characteristic
features would shape out depends mainly upon the contradiction within one's own
self. It is well known that a contradiction or conflict between instinct and
conscience works within every man. One should know that no one is born with any
instincts or conscience, neither are these unchangeable or eternal. In the
process of contradiction and conflict, the person in whom instinct succeeds in
defeating conscience becomes a mere slave of base instincts. Naturally, the
aspect of vices gets predominance in such a person, not the good qualities. We
call such a person bad. Conversely, in a person whose conscience is very sharp
and active, whose conscience can control his base instincts, the aspect of good
qualities gets more and more developed. And we call him good. That is, a man
becomes wayward if his base instincts win whereas his life takes a turn for the
better and he earns reputation as a good man if his conscience wins. It does
not, however, follow from this that no bad or base instincts can creep into a
good man, or that conscience can never work in a bad man.

So, it is clear that a constant contradiction and conflict between conscience
and instincts is there in every man; these two coexist in the same man as
totally opposing entities and every man exists with the contradiction between
these two antagonistic forces within him. Again, as there is a contradiction
between these two opposing forces, so also there is unity. It is because of this
unity and equilibrium between opposing forces that we find normal people in
society. If the equilibrium between instinct and conscience is lost man would
lose mental balance and turn mad. It means, when a base instinct tends to creep
into a good man, he overcomes it with the help of wisdom and conscious efforts.
This way a man's mental balance is maintained and he exists as a normal man. But
if someone is unable to maintain this equilibrium between the opposing forces, a
process sets in to destroy his mental balance and, being stricken with mental
contradiction, he eventually turns mad.

You will notice, this principle of unity of opposite forces is operative in
society also. For instance, in the capitalist society, the two main opposing
forces, the bourgeoisie and the working class, are fighting to defeat each
other. The character of this struggle is that each side wants to defeat the
other. We have already discussed that this type of contradiction is an
antagonistic contradiction. Naturally, a question may arise that since the main
object of the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the working class is the
defeat of one by the other, how is this capitalist society continuing and why
everybody more or less abides by its law and order. Why are the workers
participating in production in a society where the aim of production is
appropriation of maximum profit by the capitalist class ? Whereas the two
opposing forces, the bourgeois class and the working class, are engaged in a
bitter struggle to the end, how is it that they are mutually co-operating to
keep the capitalist production system running !

However, these matters are not peculiar to the present-day world only; there
were similar instances in earlier times too. When the rising capitalist class
was born in the womb of feudalism and fought against the feudal social system in
the period of emergence of capitalism, similar things happened. So long as
feudalism held its sway, it existed on the basis of a kind of unity between the
feudal lords and the bourgeoisie, the two classes moving with diametrically
opposite interests. They fought each other at times and compromised at other
times. Why did they compromise ? Till the rising capitalist class could
overthrow feudalism or monarchy, till it had acquired the required strength for
the purpose, it had but to exist through compromise and agreement with the
existing monarchy and feudalism, and such compromise generally went in favour of
the class in power. The bourgeoisie had to pursue the course of compromises with
feudalism with the object of protecting its interest and increasing its strength
as fast as possible. That is, so long as the bourgeoisie could not gain the
decisive strength required for overthrowing feudalism, it had to compromise with
the latter again and again. This is why feudalism could last so long despite the
antagonistic contradiction between the two opposing forces, the bourgeoisie and
the feudal lords. Similar is the case with capitalism today.

What do you find in the capitalist society ? Pressed by exploitation, workers
get agitated at times and organize movements against the capitalist owners or
resort to strikes even. But can they be on strike everyday, every moment ? No.
Because, in that case, how would they survive ? They have to work for
sustenance. And the mere wish to overthrow the capitalist state through
revolution does not bring about a revolution. You know, strike is not
revolution. If the workers of a factory struggle hard against the owner and are
very agitated, it does not mean that revolution has succeeded thereby, that the
workers have captured power and the capitalists have wound up their business.
Till the working class has acquired the necessary and sufficient strength to
overthrow the capitalist class from the state power, it would be wrong to
consider that since the capitalist class is the enemy, it is no use negotiating
or making a compromise with it. We should not do this. We have to explain to the
workers that in this way they will fritter away their energies and the
capitalist system will remain as it is without a scratch even. Rather, some
people would be misled by such adventures which could provide an opportunity and
excuse to the ruling class for launching sudden attacks on whatever
revolutionary organization had developed. Such onslaughts can come in many other
ways, but that is a different matter.

Those who do not understand the complex course of revolution should do well
to remember that mere clamouring for revolution cannot bring about revolution.
There are many complexities in the revolutionary struggles, many ups and downs,
many twists and turns, many a compromise. In essence, the principle of unity of
opposite forces teaches us that no doubt there would be such compromises or
unity till sufficient strength to overthrow the enemy is acquired, but the main
object is to gain more strength and acquire the capacity to overthrow the enemy,
not just to win some concessions, not to speak of surrendering to the enemy. So,
till the working class acquires the decisive strength, the workers would fight
against the owner time and again, and would also work under the owner and
participate in the production. That the production is going on and the
production system is operating itself show that the principle of unity of
opposites is in operation. Those in the communist movement who failed to
understand this principle have practised ultra-left politics, adventurism and
syndicalism, but they have not been able to show the working class the correct
path of its emancipation. This is how you should understand the principle of
unityof opposites.

Negation of negation

Finally, the principle of 'negation of negation'. It means there is nothing
in the world as only creation or as only destruction. Any creation entails
destruction and, again, it is through destruction that new creation takes place.
That is, extinction in course of development, on the one hand, and development
through extinction on the other. Take, for example, the human body. In regard to
the physical characteristics, development of the human body has definite stages
like childhood, adolescence, youth, middle age and finally old age. These are
the different stages of change in the human body, and at each stage of these
transformations the new is created by destroying the old. The change that occurs
in the body of a child each day cannot be detected day by day. But since we
cannot detect, it does not mean that there are no changes in its body everyday.
Because, at some juncture we suddenly discover that the child is no longer a
child, but has stepped into adolescence. Later on, in the same way, its
transition from adolescence to youth, from youth to middle age and, lastly, from
middle age to old age come to our notice. By studying this process of change of
the human body we can understand that unless childhood is negated every moment,
it can never step into adolescence. It is in the same process that adolescence
is negated bit by bit to attain the full bloom of youth and in the same way,
does come middle age by putting an end to youth and eventually passes therefrom
into old age. Thus, there is nothing like simple destruction or simple creation.
It is not simple negation, but negation of negation. That is why I described
negation of negation as extinction in course of development, on the one hand,
and development through extinction on the other. Unless the old, the past can be
destroyed continually, there can be no development of the new, day by day.
Therefore, creation and destruction are inextricably linked up.

The same thing applies to society as well. Those who know the history of
development of society are aware that human society was not class divided at the
primitive stage. Due to historical reasons, society became class divided after
attaining a particular stage of production. At the primitive stage, man's
contradiction with nature was the principal contradiction in society. But from
the time class division arose, class contradiction became added to man's
struggle against nature that had been going on. As the nature of class struggle
changed from one type of society to another since class division arose, it
became more and more intense and assumed an extreme form in the capitalist
society. If the fundamental characteristics and class disposition of society are
noted, it would be realized that through this process of social change have
arisen the slave and slave master society, the feudal society, the capitalist
society, and the socialist society eventually, since class division arose. If
the social structure and its class disposition are studied, it would be clear
that the society divided into slave masters and slaves gave birth to the feudal
society through quantitative and qualitative changes in course of exhausting
itself, and it is through this very same process that the capitalist society
arose from the feudal society and the socialist society was eventually born of
the capitalist society, following the same principle. We have to realize that
although a particular social sys-tem may become extinct, human society does not
disappear, nor can it. The change that comes is the transformation of a
particular social system into another. Thus, the basic principle of negation of
negation is operative in the sphere of social changes too.

Negation of negation can be discussed in another perspective. You all know
how important is the role a correct working class party plays in the struggle to
overthrow the existing capitalist state. Besides, even after successfully
accomplishing the anti-capitalist socialist revolution, during the transitional
period of socialism, in between capitalism and the communist society, the
working class party has to wage and conduct a difficult and arduous struggle to
finally establish and consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat. Class
contradiction and class struggle do not disappear in this period, rather these
assume a more complex and subtle form. And the working class party with its
leading role is the indispensable instrument of struggle in the hands of the
proletariat in this period. But when, in course of social progress, man would
reach the communist society by transcending the stage of socialism, that is when
there would be no more contradiction in society over production and distribution
of commodities, and the ethical-cultural standard of the majority of the people
would attain such a height that the antagonistic contradiction between social
interest and individual interest would turn non-antagonistic, the state and the
party too will wither away along with disappearance of classes in society. It is
to be noted that the communist society cannot be established unless these
conditions are fulfilled. Remember, the withering away of the state and the
party at that stage would also come about following this principle of negation
of negation.

You are to understand thoroughly and explain to the people that this
capitalist exploitation and destitution are not eternal. This capitalist system
too would die out some day, in our country as well as elsewhere on the globe.
But to bring about this change you are required to dispel the various
prejudices, superstitions and fads over questions like birth, death, fate,
economic distress, etc., which generally overshadow the mind of the people. That
is, you have to free them from all these. And, along with it, you will have to
accelerate the process of change that is ever operative in society. In brief,
you will have to strengthen the working class party to make it an invincible
instrument of intensifying the class struggle; and for this struggle to
culminate in successful revolution, you have to develop the mass and class
struggles to make them invincible. Success in this noble and historic task
depends on everyone of you playing a conscious role, on making your
understanding of the Marxist philosophy clear and lucid through its application
in life and work, not by bookish knowledge or learning by rote, and on your
attaining the advanced ethical-cultural standard of the true communist
revolutionary character. Remember, the earlier you succeed in this, the earlier
will revolution be ushered in India.

With this I conclude this discussion on Marxism and dialectical materialism
in this school of politics.

Notes

4.Live in pleasure, as long as you
live / eat better, borrowing money if you need

5.Science has also confirmed
existence of gas and dust particles in the interstellar space

6.Renowned scientist Maxwell stated
categorically (1873) : ''There can be no doubt that the interplanetary and
interstellar spaces are not empty but occupied by a material substance or body,
which is certainly the largest, and probably the most uniform body of which we
have any knowledge.''

7.It follows from the nature of
motion of macroscopic bodies that the position and momentum of moving bodies are
two mutually independent determinate factors or qualities, and that is why the
two can be measured simultaneously with certainty, and definite values are
obtained or are obtainable in principle. Any errors, or departures, from
definite values are thought to owe to practical limitations of making very
accurate measurements, and that these errors or limitations can be eliminated,
or the margin narrowed down as desired and in a controllable manner, by
improving the precision level of the measuring apparatus and/or technique. In
the instance of the microparticle, however, the position and momentum appear as
two mutually complementary properties of motion ; and for this they cannot be
determined simultaneously with certainty, such measurements invariably producing
uncertainties or margins of error the product of which cannot be reduced to less
than a minimum quantity. This is what the uncertainty principle states. This
uncertainty arises from the requisite attempt to describe the motion of the
microparticle in terms of the concepts of the position and momentum, which
concepts developed on the experience of the macrobody (as two mutually
independent properties of motion), but which same concepts are at once
inapplicable to the microparticle motion. This, therefore, in no way does
introduce any real element to create confusion in philosophy. Hence, also, in no
way does it undermine the objectivity of the principle of causality and
determinism. The specific nature of the causality principle holding concretely
in the world of microparticles is a matter for revelation through advancement of
science, paving the road to a deeper, more comprehensive, more general concept
of causal determinism.

8.Any two measurements in sequence
(say, of mass or weight) of a very minute quantity of a substance with a
high-precision sophisticated measuring apparatus generally do not agree. This is
mainly because, the very principle of construction of these measuring
apparatuses is such that the internal measuring condition undergoes subtle
changes generally each time a measurement is made, and this shows up in possible
varying results. Also, a substance being measured may be of such nature that it
undergoes subtle changes (say, decay) itself in the space of time (especially
when large) between any two successive measurements. This finds its reflection
in the results of measurement.